330 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


PRESENTED  BY 

PROF. CHARLES  A.  KOFOID  AND 
MRS.  PRUDENCE  W.  KOFOID 


HE    VATICAN    DECREES 


IX  THEIR  BEAKING  OX 


CIVIL  ALLEGIANCE: 


POLITICAL   EXPOSTULATION. 


BY   THE 

BIGHT  HON.  W.  E.  GLADSTONE,  M.P. 


LONDON: 
JOHN  MUKRAY,  ALBEMAKLE   STKEET. 

1874. 

The  right  of  Translation  is  reserved. 


CONTENTS. 


I.  THE  OCCASION  AND  SCOPE  OF  THIS  TRACT.     Four  Propo 
sitions.     Are  they  True? 3 

II.  THE  FIKST  AND  FOURTH  PROPOSITIONS.  (1)  "  That  Rome 
has  substituted  for  the  proud  boast  of  semper  eadem  a 
policy  of  violence  and  change  in  faith/'  (4)  "  That  she 
has  equally  repudiated  modern  thought  and  ancient 
history"  6 

III.  THE  SECOND  PROPOSITION — "  That  she  has  refurbished,  and 

paraded  anew,  every  rusty  tool  she  was  thought  to  have 
disused"  7 

IV.  THE  THIRD  PROPOSITION — "  That  Home  requires  a  convert, 

who  now  joins  her,  to  forfeit  his  moral  and  mental  free 
dom,  and  to  place  his  loyalty  and  civil  duty  at  the  mercy 
of  another" '  10 

V.  BEING  TRUE,  ARE  THE  PROPOSITIONS  MATERIAL  ?       ..      ..     21 
VI.  BEING  TRUE   AND  MATERIAL,   WERE  THE    PROPOSITIONS 

PROPER  TO  BE  SET  FORTH  BY  THE  PRESENT  WRITER  ?          . .       26 

VII.  ON  THE  HOME  POLICY  OF  THE  FUTURE       28 

APPENDICES    ..  30 


THE   VATICAN    DECREESG6 

IN   THEIR   BEARING   ON 

CIVIL    ALLEGIANCE. 

I.  THE  OCCASION  AND  SCOPE  OF  THIS  TRACT. 

IN  the  prosecution  of  a  purpose  not  polemical  but  pacific,  I  hare  been 
led  to  employ  words  which  belong,  more  or  less,  to  the  region  of 
religious  controversy;  and  which,  though  they  were  themselves  fe\r, 
seem  to  require,  from  the  various  feelings  they  have  aroused,  that  I 
should  carefully  define,  elucidate,  and  defend  them.  The  task  is  not  of 
a  kind  agreeable  to  me  ;  but  I  proceed  to  perform  it. 

Among  the  causes,  which  have  tended  to  disturb  and  perplex  the 
public  mind  in  the  consideration  of  our  own  religious  difficulties,  one 
has  been  a  certain  alarm  at  the  aggressive  activity  and  imagined 
growth  of  the  Roman  Church  in  this  country.  All  are  aware  of  our 
susceptibility  on  this  side ;  and  it  was  not,  I  think,  improper  for  one 
who  desires  to  remove  everything  that  can  interfere  with  a  calm  and 
judicial  temper,  and  who  believes  the  alarm  to  be  groundless,  to  state, 
pointedly  though  briefly,  some  reasons  for  that  belief. 

Accordingly  I  did  not  scruple  to  use  the  following  language,  in  a 
paper  inserted  in  the  number  of  the  '  Contemporary  Review  '  for  the 
month  of  October.  I  was  speaking  of  "  the  question  whether  a  hand 
ful  of  the  clergy  are  or  are  not  engaged  in  an  utterly  hopeless  and 
visionary  effort  to  Romanise  the  Church  and  people  of  England." 

"  At  no  time  since  the  bloody  reign  of  Mary  has  such  a  scheme  been 
possible.  But  if  it  had  been  possible  in  the  seventeenth  or  eighteenth 
centuries,  it  would  still  have  become  impossible  in  the  nineteenth ; 
when  Rome  has  substituted  for  the  proud  boast  of  semper  eadem  a  > 
policy  of  violence  and  change  in  faith;  when  she  has  refurbished,  and 
paraded  anew,  every  rusty  tool  she  was  fondly  thought  to  have  dis 
used ;  when  no  one  can  become  her  convert  without  renouncing  his 
moral  and  mental  freedom,  and  placing  his  civil  loyalty  and  duty  at 
the  mercy  of  another ;  and  when  she  has  equally  repudiated  modern 
thought  and  ancient  history.''* 

Had  I  been,  when  I  wrote  this  passnge,  as  I  now  am,  addressing 
myself  in  considerable  measure  to  my  Roman  Catholic  fellow-country 
men,  I  should  have  striven  to  avoid  the  seeming  roughness  of  some  of 
these  expressions ;  but  as  the  question  is  now  about  their  substance, 
from  which  I  am  not  in  any  particular  disposed  to  recede,  any  attempt 
*  '  Contemporary  Review,'  Oct.  1874,  p.  674. 

B  2 


THE   VATICAN   DECREES 

to  recast  their  general  form  would  probably  mislead.     I  proceed,  then, 
to  deal  with  them  on  their  merits. 

More  than  one  friend  of  mine,  among  those  who  have  been  led  to- 
join  the  Eoman  Catholic  communion,  has  made  this  passage  the  subject, 
more  or  less,  of  expostulation.  Now,  in  my  opinion,  the  assertions 
which  it  makes  are,  as  coming  from  a  layman  who  has  spent  most  and 
the  best  years  of  his  life  in  the  observation  and  practice  of  politics,  not 
aggressive  but  defensive. 

It  is  neither  the  abettors  of  the  Papal  Chair,  nor  any  one  who,  how 
ever  far  from  being  an  abettor  of  the  Papal  Chair,  actually  writes  from 
a  Papal  point  of  view,  that  has  a  right  to  remonstrate  with  the  world 
at  large ;  but  it  is  the  world  at  large,  on  the  contrary,  that  has  the 
fullest  right  to  remonstrate,  first  with  His  Holiness,  secondly  with  those 
who  share  his  proceedings,  thirdly  even  with  such  as  passively  allow 
and  accept  them. 

I  therefore,  as  one  of  the  world  at  large,  propose  to  expostulate  in  my 
turn.  I  shall  strive  to  show  to  such  of  my  Roman  Catholic  fellow- 
subjects  as  may  kindly  give  me  a  hearing  that,  after  the  singular  steps 
which  the  authorities  of  their  Church  have  in  these  last  years  thought 
fit  to  take,  the  people  of  this  country,  who  fully  believe  in  their  loyalty, 
are  entitled,  on  purely  civil  grounds,  to  expect  from  them  some  declara 
tion  or  manifestation  of  opinion,  in  reply  to  that  ecclesiastical  party  in 
their  Church  who  have  laid  down,  in  their  name,  principles  adverse  to 
the  purity  and  integrity  of  civil  allegiance. 

Undoubtedly  my  allegations  are  of  great  breadth.  Such  broad  alle 
gations  require  a  broad  and  a  deep  foundation.  The  first  question 
which  they  raise  is,  Are  they,  as  to  the  material  part  of  them,  true  ? 
But  even  their  truth  might  not  suffice  to  show  that  their  publication 
was  opportune.  The  second  question,  then,  which  they  raise  is,  Are 
they,  for  any  practical  purpose,  material  ?  And  there  is  yet  a  third, 
though  a  minor,  question,  which  arises  out  of  the  propositions  in  con 
nection  with  their  authorship,  Were  they  suitable  to  be  set  forth  by  the 
present  writer  ? 

To  these  three  questions  I  will  now  set  myself  to  reply.  And  the 
matter  of  my  reply  will,  as  I  conceive,  constitute  and  convey  an  appeal 
to  the  understandings  of  my  Roman  Catholic  fellow-countrymen,  which 
I'  trust  that,  at  the  least,  some  among  them  may  deem  not  altogether 
unworthy  of  their  consideration. 

From  the  language  used  by  some  of  the  organs  of  Roman  Catholic 
opinion,  it  is,  I  am  afraid,  plain  that  in  some  quarters  they  have  given 
deep  offence.  Displeasure,  indignation,  even  fury,  might  be  said  to 
mark  the  language  which  in  the  heat  of  the  moment  has  been  expressed 
here  and  there.  They  have  been  hastily  treated  as  an  attack  made 
upon  Roman  Catholics  generally,  nay,  as  an  insult  offered  them.  It  is 
obvious  to  reply,  that  of  Roman  Catholics  generally  they  state  nothing. 
Together  with  a  reference  to  "converts,"  of  which  I  shall  say  more, 
they  constitute  generally  a  free  and  strong  animadversion  on  the  con 
duct  of  the  Papal  Chair,  and  of  its  advisers  and  abettors.  If  I  am  told 
that  he  who  animadverts  upon  these  assails  thereby,  or  insults,  Roman 
Catholics  at  large,  who  do  not  choose  their  ecclesiastical  rulers,  and  are 


IN    THEIR   BEARING    ON    CIVIL   ALLEGIANCE.  O 

not  recognised  as  having  any  voice  in  the  government  of  their  Church, 
I  cannot  be  bound  by  or  accept  a  proposition  which  seems  to  me  to  be 
so  little  in  accordance  with  reason. 

Before  all  things,  however,  I  should  desire  it  to  be  understood  that, 
in  the  remarks  now  offered,  I  desire  to  eschew  not  only  religious 
bigotry,  but  likewise  theological  controversy.  Indeed,  with  theology, 
except  in  its  civil  bearing,  with  theology  as  such,  I  have  here  nothing 
whatever  to  do.  But  it  is  the  peculiarity  of  Koman  theology  that,  by 
thrusting  itself  into  the  temporal  domain,  it  naturally,  and  even  neces 
sarily,  comes  to  be  a  frequent  theme  of  political  discussion.  To  quiet- 
minded  Roman  Catholics,  it  must  be  a  subject  of  infinite  annoyance, 
that  their  religion  is,  on  this  ground  more  than  any  other,  the  subject 
of  criticism ;  more  than  any  other,  the  occasion  of  conflicts  with  the 
State  and  of  civil  disquietude.  I  feel  sincerely  how  much'  hardship 
their  case  entails.  But  this  hardship  is  brought  upon  them  altogether 
by  the  conduct  of  the  authorities  of  their  own  Church.  Why  did 
theology  enter  so  largely  into  the  debates  of  Parliament  on  Roman 
Catholic  Emancipation?  Certainly  not  because  our  statesmen  and 
debaters  of  fifty  years  ago  had  an  abstract  love  of  such  controversies, 
but  because  it  was  extensively  believed  that  the  Pope  of  Rome  had 
been  and  was  a  trespasser  upon  ground  which  belonged  to  the  civil 
authority,  and  that  he  affected  to  determine  by  spiritual  prerogative 
questions  of  the  civil  sphere.  This  fact,  if  fact  it  be,  and  not  the  truth 
or  falsehood,  the  reasonableness  or  unreasonableness,  of  any  article  of 
purely  religious  belief,  is  the  whole  and  sole  cause  of  the  mischief.  To 
this  fact,  and  to  this  fact  alone,  my  language  is  referable  :  but  for  this 
fact,  it  would  have  been  neither  my  duty  nor  my  desire  to  use  it.  All 
other  Christian  bodies  are  content  with  freedom  in  their  own  religious 
domain.  Orientals,  Lutherans,  Calvinists,  Presbyterians,  Episcopalians, 
Nonconformists,  one  and  all,  in  the  present  day,  contentedly  and  thank 
fully  accept  the  benefits  of  civil  order  ;  never  pretend  that  the  State  is 
not  its  own  master ;  make  no  religious  claims  to  temporal  possessions 
or  advantages  ;  and,  consequently,  never  are  in  perilous  collision  with 
the  State.  Nay  more,  even  so  I  believe  it  is  with  the  mass  of  Roman 
Catholics  individually.  But  not  so  with  the  leaders  of  their  Church, 
or  with  those  who  take  pride  in  following  the  leaders.  Indeed,  this 
has  been  made  matter  of  boast : — 

."""  "  There  is  not  another  Church  so  called  "  (than  the  Roman),  "  nor  any  com 
munity  professing  to  be  a  Church,  which  does  not  submit,  or  obey,  or  hold  its 
peace,  when  the  civil  governors  of  the  world  command." — '  The  Present  Crisis 
of  the  Holj  See,'  by  H.  E.  Manning,  D.D.  London,  1861,  p.  75. 

The  Rome  of  tke  Middle  Ages  claimed  universal  monarchy.  The 
modern  Church  of  Rome  has  abandoned  nothing,  retracted  nothing. 
Is  that  all  ?  Far  from  it.  By  condemning  (as  will  be  seen)  those  who, 
like  Bishop  Doyle  in  1826,*  charge  the  mediaeval  Popes  with  aggression, 
she  unconditionally,  even  if  covertly,  maintains  what  the  medieval 
Popes  maintained.  But  even  this  is  not  the  worst.  The  worst  by  far 
is  that  whereas,  in  the  national  Churches  and  communities  of  the 
*  Lords'  Committee,  March  18,  1826.  Report,  p.  190. 


6  THE    VATICAN    DECREES 

Middle  Ages,  there  was  a  brisk,  vigorous,  and  constant  opposition  to 
these  outrageous  claims,  an  opposition  which  stoutly  asserted  its  own 
orthodoxy,  which  always  caused  itself  to  be  respected,  and  which  even 
sometimes  gained  the  upper  hand  ;  now,  in  this  nineteenth  century  of 
ours,  and  while  it  is  growing  old,  this  same  opposition  has  been  put  out 
of  court,  and  judicially  extinguished  within  the  Papal  Church,  by  the 
recent  decrees  of  the  Vatican.  And  it  is  impossible  for  persons  accepting 
those  decrees  justly  to  complain,  when  such  documents  are  subjected  in 
good  faith  to  a  strict  examination  as  respects  their  compatibility  with 
civil  right  and  the  obedience  of  subjects. 

In  defending  my  language,  I  shall  carefully  mark  its  limits.  But  all 
defence  is  reassertion,  which  properly  requires  a  deliberate  reconsidera 
tion  ;  and  no  man  who  thus  reconsiders  should  scruple,  if  he  find  so 
much  as  a  word  that  may  convey  a  false  impression,  to  amend  it. 
Exactness  in  stating  truth  according  to  the  measure  of  our  intelligence, 
is  an  indispensable  condition  of  justice,  and  of  a  title  to  be  heard. 

My  propositions,  then,  as  they  stood,  are  these : — 

1.  That  "  Eome  has  substituted  for  the  proud  boast  of  semper  eadeni 
a  policy  of  violence  and  change  in  faith." 

2.  That  she  has  refurbished,  and  paraded  anew,  every  rusty  tool  she 
was  fondly  thought  to  have  disused. 

3.  That  no  one  can  now  become  her  convert  without  renouncing  his 
moral  and  mental  freedom,  and  placing  his  civil  loyalty  and  duty  at  the 
mercy  of  another. 

4.  That  she  ("  Rome  ")  has  equally  repudiated  modern  thought  and 
ancient  history. 

II.  THE  FIRST  AND  THE  FOURTH  PROPOSITIONS. 

Of  the  first  and  fourth  of  these  propositions  I  shall  dispose  rather 
summarily,  as  they  appear  to  belong  to  the  theological  domain.  They 
refer  to  a  fact,  and  they  record  an  opinion.  One  fact  to  which  they 
refer  is  this:  that,  in  days  within  my  memory,  the  constant,  favourite, 
and  imposing  argument  of  Roman  controversialists  was  the  unbroken 
and  absolute  identity  in  belief  of  the  Roman  Church  from  the  days  of 
our  Saviour  until  now,  No  one,  who  has  at  all  followed  the  course  of 
this  literature  during  the  last  forty  years,  can  fail  to  be  sensible  of  the 
change  in  its  present  tenour.  More  and  more  have  the  assertions  of 
continuous  uniformity  of  doctrine  receded  into  scarcely  penetrable 
shadow.  More  and  more  have  another  series  of  assertions,  of  a  living 
authority,  ever  ready  to  open,  adopt,  and  shape  Christian  doctrine  ac 
cording  to  the  times,  taken  their  place.  Without  discussing  the  abstract 
compatibility  of  these  lines  of  argument,  I  note  two  of  the  immense 
practical  differences  between  them.  In  the  first,  the  office  claimed  by 
the  Church  is  principally  that  of  a  witness  to  facts  ;  in  the  second, 
principally  that  of  a  judge,  if  not  a  revealer,  of  doctrine.  In  the  first, 
the  processes  which  the  Church  undertakes  are  subject  to  a  constant 
challenge  and  appeal  to  history  ;  in  the  second,  no  amount  of  historical 
testimony  can  avail  against  the  unmeasured  power  of  the  theory  of 
development.  Most  important,  most  pregnant  considerations,  these,  at 


IN    THEIR    BEARING    ON    CIVIL    ALLEGIANCE.  7 

leist  for  two  classes  of  persons  :  for  those  who  think  that  exaggerated 
d  >vjtrines  of  Church  power  are  among  the  real  and  serious  dangers  of  the 
ag  j ;  and  for  those  who  think  that  against  all  forms,  both  of  superstition 
and  of  unbelief,  one  main  preservative  is  to  be  found  in  maintaining  the 
truth  and  authority  of  history,  and  the  inestimable  value  of  the  historic 
spirit. 

So  much  for  the  fact ;  as  for  the  opinion,  that  the  recent  Papal 
decrees  are  at  war  with  modern  thought,  and  that,  purporting  to  en 
large  the  necessary  creed  of  Christendom,  they  involve  a  violent  breach 
with  history,  this  is  a  matter  unfit  for  me  to  discuss,  as  it  is  a  question 
of  Divinity ;  but  not  unfit  for  me  to  have  mentioned  in  my  article  ; 
since  the  opinion  given  there  is  the  opinion  of  those  with  whom  I  was 
endeavouring  to  reason,  namely,  the  great  majority  of  the  British 
public. 

If  it  is  thought  that  the  word  violence  was  open  to  exception,  I 
regret  I  cannot  give  it  up.  The  justification  of  the  ancient  defini 
tions  of  the  Church,  which  have  endured  the  storms  of  1500  years,  was 
to  be  found  in  this,  that  they  were  not  arbitrary  or  wilful,  but  that 
they  wholly  sprang  from,  and  related  to  theories  rampant  at  the  time, 
and  regarded  as  menacing  to  Christian  belief.  Even  the  Canons  of 
the  Council  of  Trent  have  in  the  main  this  amount,  apart  from  their 
matter,  of  presumptive  warrant.  But  the  decrees  of  the  present  perilous  \ 
Pontificate  have  been  passed  to  favour  and  precipitate  prevailing  cur 
rents  of  opinion  in  the  ecclesiastical  world  of  Rome.  The  growth  of 
what  is  often  termed  among  Protestants  Mariolatry,  and  of  belief  in  N 
Papal  Infallibilty,  was  notoriously  advancing,  but  it  seems  not  fast 
enough  to  satisfy  the  dominant  party.  To  aim  the  deadly  blows 
of  1854*  and  1870  at  the  old  historic,  scientific,  and  moderate  school, 
was  surely  an  act  of  violence ;  and  with  this  censure  the  proceeding  of 
1870  has  actually  been  visited  by  the  first  living  theologian  now  within 
the  Roman  Communion,  I  mean,  Dr.  John  Henry  Newman ;  who  has  used 
these  significant  words,  among  others  :  "  Why  should  anaggFessive  and  > 
insolent  faction  be  allowed  to  make  the  heart  of  the  just  sad,  whom  the 
Lord  hath  not  made  sorrowful."! 

III.  THE  SECOND  PROPOSITION. 

I  take  next  my  second  Proposition  :  that  Rome  has  refurbished,  and 
paraded  anew,  every  rusty  tool  she  was  fondly  thought  to  have  dis 
used. 

Is  this  then  a  fact,  or  is  it  not  ? 

I  must  assume  that  it  is  denied ;  and  therefore  I  cannot  wholly  pass 
by  the  work  of  proof.  But  I  will  state  in  the  fewest  possible  words, 
and  with  references,  a  few  propositions,  all  the  holders  of  which  have 
been  condemned  by  the  See  of  Rome  during  my  own  generation,  and 
especially  within  the  last  twelve  or  fifteen  years.  And,  in  order  that 
I  may  do  nothing  towards  importing  passion  into  what  is  matter  of 

*  Decree  of  the  Immaculate  Conception. 

t  See  the  remarkable  Letter  of  Dr.  Newman  to  Bishop  Ullathorne,  in  the 
'  Guardian  '  of  April  6,  1870. 


8  THE   VATICAN   DECREES 

pure   argument,   I  will   avoid  citing   any   of  the  fearfully   energetic 
epithets  in  which  the  condemnations  are  sometimes  clothed. 

1.  Those  who  maintain  the  Liberty  of  the  Press.     Encyclical  Letter 
of  Pope  Gregory  XVI.,  in  1831 :  and  of  Pope  Pius  IX.,  in  1864. 

2.  Or   the   liberty   of   conscience   and   of  worship.      Encyclical   of 
Pius  IX.,  December  8,  1864. 

3.  Or  the  liberty  of  speech.     '  Syllabus  '  of  March  18,  1861.     Prop. 
Ixxix.     Encyclical  of  Pope  Pius  IX.,  December  8,  1864. 

4.  Or  who  contend  that  Papal  judgments  and  decrees  may,  without 
sin,  be   disobeyed,  or  differed  from,  unless   they  treat   of  the   rules 
(dogmata)  of  faith  or  morals.     Ibid. 

5.  Or  who  assign  to  the  State  the  power  of  defining  the  civil  rights 
(jura)  and  province  of  the  Church.     '  Syllabus '  of  Pope  Pius  IX., 
March  8,  1861.     Ibid.  Prop.  xix. 

6.  Or  who  hold  that  Roman  Pontiffs  and  Ecumenical  Councils  have 
transgressed  the  limits  of  their  power,  and  usurped  the  rights  of  princes. 
Ibid.     Prop,  xxiii. 

(It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  "  Ecumenical  Councils  "  here  mean 
Roman    Councils,  not  recognised  by   the  rest  of  the   Church.      The 
Councils  of  the  early  Church  did  not  interfere  with  the  jurisdiction  of 
'  the  civil  power.') 

7.  Or  that  the  Church  may  not   employ  force.     (Ecclesia  vis  in- 
•  ferendce  potestatem  non  habet.)     '  Syllabus,'  Prop.  xxiv. 

8.  Or  that  power,  not  inherent  in  the  office  of  the  Episcopate,  but 
granted  to  it  by  the  civil  authority,  may  be  withdrawn  from  it  at  the 

•discretion  of  that  authority.     Ibid.  Prop.  xxv. 

9.  Or  that  the  civil  immunity  (immunitas)  of  the  Church  and  its 
'ministers,  depends  upon  civil  right.     Ibid.  Prop.  xxx. 

10.  Or  that  in  the  conflict  of  laws  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  the  civil 
law  should  prevail.     Ibid.  Prop.  xlii. 

11.  Or  that  any  method  of  instruction  of  youth,  solely  secular,  may 
be  approved.     Ibid.  Prop,  xlviii. 

12.  Or  that  knowledge  of  things  philosophical  and  civil,  may  and 
should  decline  to  be  guided  by  Divine  and  Ecclesiastical  authority. 
Ibid.  Prop.  Ivii. 

13.  Or  that  marriage  is  not  in  its  essence  a  Sacrament.  Ib.,  Prop.  Ixvi. 

14.  Or  that  marriage,  not  sacramentally  contracted,  (si  sacramentum 
excludatur)  has  a  binding  force.     Ibid.  Prop.  Ixxiii. 

15.  Or  that  the  abolition  of  the  Temporal  Power  of  the  Popedom 
would  be  highly  advantageous  to  the   Church.     Ibid.   Prop.   Ixxvi. 
Also  Ixx. 

16.  Or  that  any  other  religion  than  the  .Roman  religion  may  be 
established  by  a  State.     Ibid.  Prop.  Ixxvii. 

17.  Or  that  in  "  Countries  called  Catholic,"  the  free  exercise  of  other 
religions  may  laudably  be  allowed.     '  Syllabus,'  Prop.  Ixxviii. 

18.  Or  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  ought  to  come  to  terms  with  progress, 
liberalism,  and  modern  civilization.     Ibid.  Prop.  Ixxx.* 

This  list  is  now  perhaps  sufficiently  extended,  although  I  have  as 

*  For  the  original  passages  from  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  Pius  IX., 
see  Appendix  A. 


IN   THEIR   BEARING   ON    CIVIL   ALLEGIANCE.  9 

yet  not  touched  the  decrees  of  1870.     But,  before  quitting  it,  1  must 
offer  three  observations  on  what  it  contains. 

Firstly.  I  do  not  place  all  the  Propositions  in  one  and  the  same 
category  ;  for  there  are  a  portion  of  them  which,  as  far  as  I  can  judge, 
might,  by  the  combined  aid  of  favourable  construction  and  vigorous- 
explanation,  be  brought  within  bounds.  And  I  hold  that  favourable 
construction  of  the  terms  used  in  controversies  is  the  right  general 
rule.  But  this  can  only  be  so,  when  construction  is  an  open  question. 
When  the  author  of  certain  propositions  claims,  as  in  the  case  before  us, 
a  sole  and  unlimited  power  to  interpret  them  in  such  manner  and  by 
such  rules  as  he  may  from  time  to  time  think  fit,  the  only  defence 
for  all  others  concerned  is  at  once  to  judge  for  themselves,  how 
much  of  unreason  or  of  mischief  the  words,  naturally  understood,  may 
contain. 

Secondly.  It  may  appear,  upon  a  hasty  perusal,  that  neither  the  inflic 
tion  of  penalty  in  life,  limb,  liberty,  or  goods,  on  disobedient  members  of 
the  Christian  Church,  nor  the  title  to  depose  sovereigns,  and  release  sub 
jects  from  their  allegiance,  with  all  its  revolting  consequences,  has  been' 
here  reaffirmed.  In  terms,  there  is  no  mention  of  them;  but  in  the 
substance  of  the  propositions,  I  grieve  to  say,  they  are  beyond  doubt 
included.  For  it  is  notorious  that  they  have  been  declared  and  decreed 
by  "  Rome,"  that  is  to  say  by  Popes  and  Papal  Councils  ;  and  the  strin 
gent  condemnations  of  the  Syllabus  include  all  those  who  hold  that 
Popes  and  Papal  Councils  (declared  ecumenical)  have  transgressed  the 
just  limits  of  their  power,  or  usurped  the  rights  of  princes.  What  have 
been  their  opinions  and  decrees  about  persecution  I  need  hardly  say ; 
and  indeed  the  right  to  employ  physical  force  is  even  here  undisguisedly 
claimed  (No.  7). 

Even  while  I  am  writing,  I  am  reminded,  from  an  unquestionable 
source,  of  the  words  of  Pope  Pius  IX.  himself  on  the  deposing  power.  I 
add  only  a  lew  italics  ;  the  words  appear  as  given  in  a  translation, 
without  the  original : — 

"  The  present  Pontiff  used  these  words  in  replying  to  the  address  from  the 
Academia  of  the  Catholic  Religion  (July  21,  1873):  — 

"  '  There  are  many  errors  regarding  the  Infallibility  :  but  the  most  malicious 
of  all  is  that  which  includes,  in  that  dogma,  the  right  of  deposing  sovereigns, 
and  declaring  the  people  no  longer  bound  by  the  obligation  of  fidelity.  This 
right  has  now  and  again,  in  critical  circumstances,  been  exercised  by  the 
Pontiffs  :  but  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  Papal  Infallibility.  Its  origin  was  not 
the  infallibility,  but  the  authority  of  the  Pope.  This  authority,  in  accordance 
with  public  right,  which  was  then  vigorous,  and  with  the  acquiescence  of  all 
Christian  nations,  who  reverenced  in  the  Pope  the  supreme  Judge  of  the 
Christian  Commonwealth,  extended  so  far  as  to  pass  judgment,  even  in  civil 
a/airs,  on  the  acts  of  Princes  and  of  Nations.'  "  * 

Lastly.  I  must  observe  that  these  are  not  mere  opinions  of  the 
Pope  himself,  nor  even  are  they  opinions  which  he  might  paternally 

*  '  Civilization  and  the  See  of  Rome.'  By  Lord  Robert  Montagu,  Dublin, 
1874.  A  Lecture  delivered  under  the  auspices  of  the  Catholic  Union  of 
Ireland.  I  have  a  little  misgiving  about  the  version :  but  not  of  a  nature  to 
affect  the  substance. 


'10  THE    VATICAN   DECBEES 

recommend  to  the  pious  consideration  of  the  faithful.  With  the  promul 
gation  of  his  opinions  is  unhappily  combined,  in  the  Encyclical  Letter, 
which  virtually,  though,  not  expressly,  includes  the  whole,  a  command 
to  all  his  spiritual  children  (from  which  command  we  the  disobedient 
children  are  in  no  way  excluded)  to  hold  them. 

"  Itaque  omnes  et  singulas  pravas  opiniones  et  doctrinas  singillatim 
hisce  literis  commemoratas  auctoritate  nostra  Apostolica  reprobamus, 
proscribimus,  atque  damnamus  ;  easque  ab  omnibus  Catholicze  Ecclesias 
filiis,  veluti  reprubatas,  proscriptas,  atque  damnatas  omnino  haberi 
volumus  et  mandamus."  Encyel.  Dec.  8,  1864. 

And  the  decrees  of  1870  will  presently  show  us,  what  they  establish 
as  the  binding  force  of  the  mandate  thus  conveyed  to  the  Christiaji 
world. 

IV.  THE  THIRD  PROPOSITION. 

I  now  pass  to  the  operation  of  these  extraordinary  declarations  on 
personal  and  private  duty. 

When  the  cup  of  endurance,  which  had  so  long  been  filling,  began, 
with  the  council  of  the  Vatican  in  1870,  to  overflow,  the  most  famous 
and  learned  living  theologian  of  the  Roman  Communion,  Dr.  von  Del- 
linger,  long  the  foremost  champion  of  his  Church,  refused  compliance, 
and  submitted,  with  his  temper  undisturbed  and  his  freedom  unim 
paired,  to  the  extreme  and  most  painful  penalty  of  excommunication. 
With  him,  many  of  the  most  learned  and  respected  theologians  of  the 
Roman  Communion  in  Germany  underwent  the  same  sentence.  The 
very  few,  who  elsewhere  (I  do  not  speak  of  Switzerland)  suffered  in 
like  manner,  deserve  an  admiration  rising  in  proportion  to  their  fewness. 
It  seems  as  though  Germany,  from  which  Luther  blew  the  mighty 
trumpet  that  even  now  echoes  through  the  land,  still  retained  her 
primacy  in  the  domain  of  conscience,  still  supplied  the  centuria  prcc- 
rogativa  of  the  great  comitia  of  the  world. 

But  let  no  man  wonder  or  complain.  Without  imputing  to  anyone 
the  moral  murder,  for  such  it  is,  of  stifling  conscience  and  conviction,  I 
for  one  cannot  be  surprised  that  the  fermentation,  which  is  working 
through  the  mind  of  the  Latin  Church,  has  as  yet  (elsewhere  *han  in 
Germany)  but  in  few  instances  come  to  the  surface.  By  the  mass  of 
mankind,  it  is  morally  impossible  that  questions  such  as  these  can  be 
adequately  examined ;  so  it  ever  has  been,  and  so  in  the  main  it  will 
continue,  until  the  principles  of  manufacturing  machinery  shall  have 
been  applied,  and  with  analogous  results,  to  intellectual  and  moral  pro 
cesses.  Followers  they  are  and  must  be,  and  in  a  certain  sense  ought 
to  be.  But  what  as  to  the  leaders  of  society,  the  men  of  education 
and  of  leisure  ?  I  will  try  to  suggest  some  answer  in  few  words.  A 
change  of  religious  profession  is  under  all  circumstances  a  great  and 
awful  thing.  Much  more  is  the  question,  however,  between  conflicting, 
or  apparently  conflicting,  duties  arduous,  when  the  religion  of  a  man 
has  been  changed  for  him,  over  his  head,  and  without  the  very  least  of 
his  participation.  Far  be  it  then  from  me  to  make  any  Roman 
Catholic,  except  the  great  hierarchic  Power,  and  those  \\  ho  have  egge 


IN   THEIR    BEARING   ON   CIVIL   ALLEGIANCE.  11 

it  on,  responsible  for  the  portentous  proceedings  which  we  have  wit 
nessed.  My  conviction  is  that,  even  of  those  who  may  not  shake  off 
the  yoke,  multitudes  will  vindicate  at  any  rate  their  loyalty  at  the 
expense  of  the  consistency,  which  perhaps  in  difficult  matters  of  religion 
few  among  us  perfectly  maintain.  But  this  belongs  to  the  future ; 
for  the  present,  nothing  could  in  my  opinion  be  more  unjust  than  to 
hold  the  members  of  the  Roman  Church  in  general  already  responsible 
for  the  recent  innovations.  The  duty  of  observers,  who  think  the 
claims  involved  in  these  decrees  arrogant  and  false,  and  such  as  not 
even  impotence  real  or  supposed  ought  to  shield  from  criticism,  is 
frankly  to  state  the  case,  and,  by  way  of  friendly  challenge,  to  intreat 
their  Roman  Catholic  fellow-countrymen  to  replace  themselves  in  the. 
position  which  five-and- forty  years  ago  this  nation,  by  the  voice  and: 
action  of  its  Parliament,  declared  its  belief  that  they  held. 

Upon  a  strict  re-examination  of  the  language,  as  a  part  from  the- 
substance  of  my  fourth  Proposition,  I  find  it  faulty,  inasmuch  as  it 
seems  to  imply  that  a  "  convert"  now  joining  the  Papal  Church,  not 
only  gives  up  certain  rights  and  duties  of  freedom,  but  surrenders  them 
by  a  conscious  and  deliberate  act.  What  I  have  less  accurately  said 
that  he  renounced,  I  might  have  more  accurately  said  that  he  forfeited. 
To  speak  strictly,  the  claim  now  made  upon  him  by  the  authority,, 
which  he  solemnly  and  with  the  highest  responsibility  acknowledges, 
requires  him  to  surrender  his  mental  and  moral  freedom,  and  to  place- 
his  loyalty  and  civil  duty  at  the  mercy  of  another.  There  may  have- 
been,  and  may  be,  persons  who  in  their  sanguine  trust  will  not  shrink' 
from  this  result,  and  will  console  themselves  with  the  notion  that  their 
loyalty  and  civil  duty  are  to  be  committed  to  the  custody  of  one  much 
wiser  than  themselves.  But  I  am  sure  that  there  are  also  "  converts  'r 
who,  when  they  perceive,  will  by  word  and  act  reject,  the  consequence 
which  relentless  logic  draws  for  them.  If,  however,  my  proposition  be 
true,  there  is  no  escape  from  the  dilemma.  Is  it  then  true,  or  is  it  not 
true,  that  Rome  requires  a  convert,  who  now  joins  her,  to  forfeit  his 
moral  and  mental  freedom,  and  to  place  his  loyalty  and  civil  duty  at 
the  mercy  of  another  ? 

In  order  to  place  this  matter  in  as  clear  a  light  as  I  can,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  go  back  a  little  upon  our  recent  history. 

A  century  ago  we  began  to  relax  that  system  of  penal  laws  against 
Roman  Catholics,  at  onoe  pettifogging,  base,  and  cruel,  which  Mr.  Burke 
has  scathed  and  blasted  with  his  immortal  eloquence. 

When  this  process  had  reached  the  point,  at  which  the  question 
•was  whether  they  should  be  admitted  into  Parliament,  there  arose  a 
great  and  prolonged  national  controversy ;  and  some  men,  who  at  no 
time  of  their  lives  were  narrow-minded,  such  as  Sir  Robert  Peel,  the 
Minister,  resisted  the  concession.  The  arguments  in  its  favour  were 
obvious  and  strong,  and  they  ultimately  prevailed.  But  the  strength 
of  the  opposing  party  had  lain  in  the  allegation  that,  from  the  nature 
and  claims  of  the  Papal  power,  it  was  not  possible  for  the  consistent 
Roman  Catholic  to  pay  to  the  crown  of  this  country  an  entire  alle 
giance,  and  that  the  admission  of  persons,  thus  self-disabled,  to  Parlia 
ment  was  inconsistent  with  the  safety  of  the  State  and  nation  j  which 


12  THE    VATICAN    DECREES 

had  not  very  long  before,  it  may  be  observed,  emerged  from  a  struggle 
for  existence. 

An  answer  to  this  argument  was  indispensable  ;  and  it  was  supplied 
mainly  from  two  sources.  The  Josephine  laws,*  then  still  subsisting 
in  the  Austrian  empire,  and  the  arrangements  which  had  been  made 
after  the  peace  of  1815  by  Prussia  and  the  German  States  with 
Pius  VII.  and  Gonsalvi,  proved  that  the  Papal  Court  could  submit  to 
circumstances,  and  could  allow  material  restraints  even  upon  the 
exercise  of  its  ecclesiastical  prerogatives.  Here,  then,  was  a  reply  in 
the  sense  of  the  phrase  solvitur  ambulando.  Much  information  of  this 
class  was  collected  for  the  information  of  Parliament  and  the  country.f 
But  there  were  also  measures  taken  to  learn,  from  the  highest  Roman 
Catholic  authorities  of  this  country,  what  was  the  exact  situation  of 
the  members  of  that  communion  with  respect  to  some  of  the  better 
known  exorbitances  of  Papal  assumption.  Did  the  Pope  claim  any 
temporal  jurisdiction  ?  Did  he  still  pretend  to  the  exercise  of  a  power 
to  depose  kings,  release  subjects  from  their  allegiance,  and  incite  them 
to  revolt  ?  Was  faith  to  be  kept  with  heretics'?  Did  the  Church  still 
teach  the  doctrines  of  persecution?  Now,  to  no  one  of  these  questions 
could  the  answer  really  be  of  the  smallest  immediate  moment  to  this 
powerful  and  solidly  compacted  kingdom.  They  were  topics  selected 
by  way  of  sample ;  and  the  intention  was  to  elicit  declarations  showing 
generally  that  the  fangs  of  the  mediaeval  Popedom  had  been  drawn, 
and  its  claws  torn  away ;  that  the  Roman  system,  however  strict  in  its 
dogma,  was  perfectly  compatible  with  civil  liberty,  and  with  the  in 
stitutions  of  a  free  State  moulded  on  a  different  religious  basis  from  its 
own. 

Answers  in  abundance  were  obtained,  tending  to  show  that  the 
doctrines  of  deposition  and  persecution,  of  keeping  no  faith  with  heretics, 
and  of  universal  dominion,  were  obsolete  beyond  revival ;  that  every 
assurance  could  be  given  respecting  them,  except  such  as  required  the 
shame  of  a  formal  retractation ;  that  they  were  in  effect  mere  bugbears, 
unworthy  to  be  taken  into  account  by  a  nation,  which  prided  itself  on 
being  made  up  of  practical  men. 

But  it  was  unquestionably  felt  that  something  more  than  the 
renunciation  of  these  particular  opinions  was  necessary  in  order 
to  secure  the  full  concession  of  civil  rights  to  Roman  Catholics. 
As  to  their  individual  loyalty,  a  State  disposed  to  generous  or 
candid  interpretation  had  no  reason  to  be  uneasy.  It  was  only  with 
regard  to  requisitions,  which  might  be  made  on  them  from  another 
quarter,  that  apprehension  could  exist.  It  was  reasonable  that  England 

*  See  the  work  of  Count  dal  Pozzo  on  the  '  Austrian  Ecclesiastical  Law.' 
London :  Murray,  1827.  The  Leopoldine  Laws  in  Tuscany  may  also  be 
mentioned. 

f  See  '  Report  from  the  Select  Committee  appointed  to  report  the  nature 
and  substance  of  the  Laws  and  Ordinances  existing  in  Foreign  States,  respect 
ing  the  regulation  of  their  Roman  Catholic  subjects  in  Ecclesiastical  matters, 
and  their  intercourse  with  the  See  of  Rome,  or  any  other  Foreign  Ecclesiastical 
Jurisdiction.'  Printed  for  the  House  of  Commons  in  1816  and  1817.  "Re 
printed  1851. 


IN    THEIB   BEARING    ON    CIVIL    ALLEGIANCE.  13 

should  desire  to  know  not  only  what  the  Pope  *  might  do  for  himself, 
but  to  what  demands,  by  the  constitution  of  their  Church,  they  were 
liable ;  and  how  far  it  was  possible  that  such  demands  could  touch 
their  civil  duty.  The  theory  which  placed  every  human  being,  in 
things  spiritual  and  things  temporal,  at  the  feet  of  the  Roman  Pontiff, 
had  not  been  an  idolum  specus,  a  mere  theory  of  the  chamber.  Brain 
power  never  surpassed  in  the  political  history  of  the  world  had  been 
devoted  for  centuries  to  the  single  purpose  of  working  it  into  the 
practice  of  Christendom ;  had  in  the  West  achieved  for  an  impossible 
problem  a  partial  success ;  and  had  in  the  East  punished  the  obstinate 
independence  of  the  Church  by  that  Latin  conquest  of  Constantinople, 
which  effectually  prepared  the  way  for  the  downfall  of  the  Eastern 
empire,  and  the  establishment  of  the  Turks  in  Europe.  What  was 
really  material  therefore  was,  not  whether  the  Papal  chair  laid  claim  to 
this  or  that  particular  power,  but  whether  it  laid  claim  to  some  power 
that  included  them  all,  and  whether  that  claim  had  received  suck 
sanction  from  the  authorities  of  the  Latin  Church,  that  there  remained 
within  her  borders  absolutely  no  tenable  standing-ground  from  which 
war  against  it  could  be  maintained.  Did  the  Pope  then  claim  infalli 
bility  ?  Or  did  he,  either  without  infallibility  or  with  it  (and  if  with 
it  so  much  the  worse),  claim  an  universal  obedience  from  his  flock  ? 
And  were  these  claims,  either  or  both,  affirmed  in  his  Church  by 
authority  which  even  the  least  Papal  of  the  members  of  that  Church 
must  admit  to  be  binding  upon  conscience  ? 

The  two  first  of  these  questions  were  covered  by  the  third.  And 
well  it  was  that  they  were  so  covered.  For  to  them  no  satisfactory 
answer  could  even  then  be  given.  The  Popes  had  kept  up,  with  com 
paratively  little  intermission,  for  well-nigh  a  thousand  years  their  claim 
to  dogmatic  infallibility  ;  and  had,  at  periods  within  the  same  tract  of 
time,  often  enough  made,  and  never  retracted,  that  other  claim  which  is 
theoretically  less  but  practically  larger ;  their  claim  to  an  obedience 
virtually  universal  from  the  baptised  members  of  the  Church.  To  the 
third  question  it  was  fortunately  more  practicable  to  prescribe  a  satis 
factory  reply.  It  was  well  known  that,  in  the  days  of  its  glory  and 
intellectual  power,  the  great  Gallican  Church  had  not  only  not  admitted, 
but  had  denied  Papal  infallibility,  and  had  declared  that  the  local  laws 
and  usages  of  the  Church  could  not  be  set  aside  by  the  will  of  the 
Pontiff.  Nay,  further,  it  was  believed  that  in  the  main  these  had  been, 
down  to  the  close  of  the  last  century,  the  prevailing  opinions  of  the 
Cisalpine  Churches  in  communion  with  Home.  The  Council  of  Con 
stance  had  in  act  as  well  as  word  shown  that  the  Pope's  judgments,  and 
the  Pope  himself,  were  triable  by  the  assembled  representatives  of  the 
Christian  world.  And  the  Council  of  Trent,  notwithstanding  the  pre 
dominance  in  it  of  Italian  and  Roman  influences,  if  it  had  not  denied, 
yet  had  not  affirmed  either  proposition. 

*  At  that  period  the  eminent  and  able  Bishop  Doyle  did  not  scruple  to 
write  as  follows  :  "  We  are  taunted  With  the  proceedings  of  Popes.  What,  my 
Lord,  have  we  Catholics  to  do  with  the  proceedings  of  Popes,  or  why  should 
we  be  made  accountable  for  them  ?"—<  Essay  on  the  Catholic  Claims.'  To 
Lord  Liverpool,  1826,  p.  111. 


14;  THE    VATICAN    DECREES 

All  that  remained  was,  to  know  what  were  the  sentiments  entertained 
on  these  vital  points  by  the  leaders  and  guides  of  Koman  Catholic  opinion 
nearest  to  our  own  doors.  And  here  testimony  was  offered,  which  must 
not,  and  cannot,  be  forgotten.  In  part,  this  was  the  testimony  of  wit 
nesses  before  the  Committees  of  the  two  Houses  in  1824  and  1825.  I 
need  quote  two  answers  only,  given  by  the  Prelate,  who  more  than  any 
other  represented  his  Church,  and  influenced  the  mind  of  this  country 
in  favour  of  concession  at  the  time,  namely,  Bishop  Doyle.  He  was 
asked,* 

"  In  what,  and  how  far,  does  the  Roman  Catholic  profess  to  obey  the  Pope  ?" 

He  replied  : 

"  The  Catholic  professes  to  obey  the  Pope  in  matters  which  regard  hi.-, 
religious  faith :  and  in  those  matters  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  which  haTe 
already  been  defined  by  the  competent  authorities." 

And  again. 

"  Does  that  justify  the  objection  that  is  made  to  Catholics,  that  their  alle 
giance  is  divided  ?," 

"I  do  not  think  it  does  in  any  way.  We  are  bound  to  obey  the  Pope  in, 
those  things  that  I  have  already  mentioned.  But  our  obedience  to  the  law,  and 
the  allegiance  which  we  owe  the  sovereign,  are  complete,  and  full,  and  perfect, 
and  undivided,  inasmuch  as  they  extend  to  all  political,  legal,  and  civil  rights 
of  the  king  or  of  his  subjects.  I  think  the  allegiance  due  to  the  king,  and  the 
allegiance  due  to  the  Pope,  are  as  distinct  and  as  divided  in  their  nature,  as 
any  two  things  can  possibly  be." 

Such  is  the  opinion  of  the  dead  Prelate.  "\Ve  shall  presently  hear  the 
opinion  of  a  living  one.  But  the  sentiments  of  the  dead  man  powerfully 
operated  on  the  open  and  trustful  temper  of  this  people  to  induce  them 
to  grant,  at  the  cost  of  so  much  popular  feeling  and  national  tradition, 
the  great  and  just  concession  of  1829.  That  concession,  without  such 
declarations,  it  would,  to  say  the  least,  have  been  far  more  difficult  to 
obtain. 

Now,  bodies  are  usually  held  to  be  bound  by  the  evidence  of  their 
own  selected  and  typical  witnesses.  But  in  this  instance  the  colleagues 
of  those  witnesses  thought  fit  also  to  speak  collectively. 

First,  let  us  quote  from  the  collective  "  Declaration,"  in  the  year  1826 
of  the  Vicars  Apostolic,  who,  with  Episcopal  authority,  governed  the 
Koman  Catholics  of  Great  Britain. 

"  The  allegiance  which  Catholics  hold  to  be  due,  and  are  bound  to  pay,  to 
their  Sovereign,  and  to  the  civil  authority  of  the  State,  is  perfect  and  un 
divided 

"  They  declare  that  neither  the  Pope,  nor  any  other  prelate  or  ecclesiasticai 
person  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ....  has  any  right  to  interfere 

*  Committees  of  both  Lords  and  Commons  sat ;  the  former  in  1825,  the 
latter  in  1824—5.  The  References  were  identical,  and  ran  as  follows:  "To 
inquire  into  the  state  of  Ireland,  more  particularly  with  reference  to  the 
circumstances  which  may  have  led  to  disturbances  in  that  part  of  the  United- 
Kingdom."  Bishop  Doyle  was  examined  March  21,  1825,  and  April  21,  1825, 
before  the  Lords.  The  two  citations  in  the  text  are  taken  from  Bishop  Doyle's 
evidence  before  the  Commons'  Committee,  March  12,  1825,  p.  190. 


IN    THEIR   BEARING   ON    CIVIL    ALLEGIANCE.  15 

Directly  or  indirectly  in  the  Civil  Government  ....  nor  to  oppose  in  any 
manner  the  performance  of  the  civil  duties  which  are  due  to  the  king." 

Not  less  explicit  was  the  Hierarchy  of  the  Koman  Communion  in  its 
"  Pastoral  Address  to  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  in  Ireland,"  dated  January  25,  1826.  This  address  contains  a 
Declaration,  from  which  I  extract  the  following  words  : — 

"  It  is  a  duty  which  they  owe  to  themselves,  as  well  as  to  their  Protestant 
fellow-subjects,  whose  good  opinion  they  value,  to  endeavour  once  more  to 
Temove  the  false  imputations  that  have  been  frequently  cast  upon  the  faith 
and  discipline  of  that  Church  which  is  intrusted  to  their  care,  that  all  may  be 
enabled  to  know  with  accuracy  their  genuine  principles." 

In  Article  11:— 

"  They  declare  on  oath  their  belief  that  it  is  not  an  article  of  the  Catholic 
Faith,  neither  are  they  thereby  required  to  believe,  that  the  Pope  is  infallible." 

and,  after  various  recitals,  they  set  forth 

"  After  this  full,  explicit,  and  sworn  declaration,  we  are' utterly  at  a  loss  to 
conceive  on  what  possible  ground  we  could  be  justly  charged  with  bearing 
towards  our  most  gracious  Sovereign  only  a  divided  allegiance." 

Thus,  besides  much  else  that  I  will  not  stop  to  quote,  Papal  infallibility 
was  most  solemnly  declared  to  be  a  matter  on  which  each  man  might 
think  as  he  pleased ;  the  Pope's  power  to  claim,  obedience  was  strictly 
and  narrowly  limited  :  it  was  expressly  denied  that  he  had  any  title, 
direct  or  indirect,  to  interfere  in  civil  government.  Of  the  right  of  the 
Pope  to  define  the  limits  which  divide  the  civil  from  the  spiritual  by  his 
own  authority,  not  one  word  is  said  by  the  Prelates  of  either  country. 

Since  that  time,  all  these  propositions  have  been  reversed.  The 
Pope's  infallibility,  when  he  speaks  ex  cathedra  on  faith  and  morals,  has 
been  declared,  with  the  assent  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Roman  Church,  to 
be  an  article  of  faith,  binding  on  the  conscience  of  every  Christian  ;  his 
claim  to  the  obedience  of  his  spiritual  subjects  has  been  declared  in  like 
manner  without  any  practical  limit  or  reserve;  and  his  supremacy, 
without  any  reserve  of  civil  rights,  has  been  similarly  affirmed  to  in 
clude  everything  which  relates  to  the  discipline  and  government  of  the 
Church  throughout  the  world.  And  these  doctrines,  we  now  know  on 
the  highest  authority,  it  is  of  necessity  for  salvation  to  believe. 

Independently,  however,  of  the  Vatican  Decrees  themselves,  it  is 
necessary  for  all  who  wish  to  understand  what  has  been  the  amount  of 
the  wonderful  change  now  consummated  in  the  constitution  of  the  Latin 
Church,  and  what  is  the  present  degradation  of  its  Episcopal  order,  to 
observe  also  the  change,  amounting  to  revolution,  of  form  in  the  present, 
as  compared  with  other  conciliatory  decrees.  Indeed,  that  spirit  of  cen 
tralisation,  the  excesses  of  which  are  as  fatal  to  vigorous  life  in  the  Church 
as  in  the  State,  seems  now  nearly  to  have  reached  the  last  and  furthest 
point  of  possible  advancement  and  exaltation. 

When,  in  fact,  we  speak  of  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  the  Vatican, 
we  use  a  phrase  which  will  not  bear  strict  examination.  The  Canons 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  were,  at  least,  the  real  Canons  of  a  real  Council : 
and  the  strain  in  which  they  are  promulgated  is  this : — L'xc  sacro- 
sancta,  ecumenica,  et  generalis  Tridentina  Sy nodus,  in  Spiritu  Sancto 


16  THE   VATICAN   DECREES    ' 

legitime  congregata,  in  ed  prcesidentibus  eisdem  tribus  apostolicis  Leya- 
tis,  hortatur,  or  docet,  or  statuit,  or  decernit,  and  the  like;  and  its 
canons,  as  published  in  Eome,  are  "  Car/ones  et  decreta  Sacrosancti 
ecumenici  Concilii  Tridentini"  *  and  so  forth.  But  what  we  have  now 
to  do  with  is  the  Constitutio  Dogmatica  Prima  de  Ecdesid  Christ^ 
edita  in  Sessione  tertid  of  the  Vatican  Council.  It  is  not  a  constitution 
made  by  the  Council,  but  one  promulgated  in  the  Council.f  And  who 
is  it  that  legislates  and  decrees?  It  is  Pius  Episcopus,  servus  servoncm 
Dei  :  and  the  seductive  plural  of  his  docemus  et  dedaramus  is  simply  the 
dignified  and  ceremonious  "  We"  of  Koyal  declarations.  The  document 
is  dated  Pontificates  nostri  Anno  XXV :  and  the  humble  share  of  the 
assembled  Episcopate  in  the  transaction  is  represented  by  sawo  appro- 
bante  concilia.  And  now  for  the  propositions  themselves. 
First  comes  the  Pope's  infallibility : — 

"  Docemus,  et  divinitus  revelatutn  dogma  esse  defmimus,  Romanum  Ponti- 
ficem,  cum  ex  Cathedra"  loquitur,  id  est  cum,  omnium  Christianorum  Pastovis 
et  Doctoris  munere  fungens,  pro  suprema  sua  Apostolicd  auctoritate  doctrinam 
de  fide  vel  moribus  ab  universal  Ecclesia  tenendam  definit,  per  assistentium 
dirinam,  ipsi  in  Beato  Petro  promissam,  ea  infallibilitate  pollere,  qua  Divine 
Redemptor  Ecclesiam  suam  in  definienda  doctrina  de  fide  vel  moribus  in- 
structam  esse  voluit :  ideoque  ejus  Romani  Pontificis  definitiones  ex  sese  non 
autem  ex  consensu  Ecclesia  irreformabiles  esse."  { 

Will  it,  then,  be  said  that  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  accrues  only 
when  he  speaks  ex  cathedra  ?  No  doubt  this  is  a  very  material  consi 
deration  for  those,  who  have  been  told  that  the  private  conscience  is  to 
derive  comfort  and  assurance  from  the  emanations  of  the  Papal  Chair .; 
for  there  is  no  established  or  accepted  definition  of  the  phrase  ex  cathe 
dra,  and  he  has  no  power  to  obtain  one,  and  no  guide  to  direct  him  in 
his  choice  among  some  twelve  theories  on  the  subject,  which,  it  is  said, 
are  banded  to  and  fro  among  Roman  theologians,  except  the  despised 
and  discarded  agency  of  his  private  judgment.  But  while  thus  sorely 
tantalised,  he  is  not  one  whit  protected.  For  there  is  still  one  person, 
and  one  only,  who  can  unquestionably  declare  ex  cathedra  what  is  ex 
cathedra  and  what  is  not,  and  who  can  declare  it  when  and  as  he 
pleases.  That  person  is  the  Pope  himself.  The  provision  is,  that  no 
document  he  issues  shall  be  valid  without  a  seal :  but  the  seal  remains 
under  his  own  sole  lock  and  key. 

Again,  it  may  be  sought  to  plead,  that  the  Pope  is,  after  all,  only 
operating  by  sanctions  which  unquestionably  belong  to  the  religious 
domain.  He  does  not  propose  to  invade  the  country,  to  seize  Wool 
wich,  or  burn  Portsmouth.  He  will  only,  at  the  worst,  excommuni 
cate  opponents,  as  he  has  excommunicated  Dr.  von  Dollinger  and  others, 
Is  this  a  good  ans\ver?  After  all,  even  in  the  Middle  Ages,  it  was  not 
by  the  direct  action  of  fleets  and  armies  of  their  own  that  the  Popes 

*  '  Romas :  in  Collegio  urbano  de  Propaganda"  Fide.'     1833. 

f  I  am  aware  that,  as  some  hold,  this  was  the  case  with  the  Council  of  tha 
Lateran  in  A.D.  1215.  But,  first,  this  has  not  been  established  :  secondly,  the 
very  gist  of  the  evil  we  are  dealing  with  consists  in  following  (and  enforcing) 
precedents  from  the  age  of  Pope  Innocent  Hi. 

+  l  Constitutio  de  Ecclesia1,'  c.  iv. 


IN    THEIR    BEARING    ON    CIVIL    ALLEGIANCE.  17 

contended  with  kings  who  were  refractory;  it  was  mainly  by  interdicts, 
and  by  the  refusal,  which  they  entailed  when  the  Bishops  were  not 
brave  enough  to  refuse  their  publication,  of  religious  offices  to  the  people. 
It  was  thus  that  Kn gland  suffered  under  John,  France  under  Philip 
Augustus,  Leon  under  Alphonso  the  Noble,  and  every  country  in  its- 
turn.  But  the  inference  may  be  drawn  that  they  who,  while  using; 
spiritual  wea|x>ns  for  such  an  end,  do  not  employ  temporal  means,  only 
fail  to  employ  them  because  they  have  them  not.  A  religious  society, 
which  delivers  volleys  of  spiritual  censures  in  order  to  impede  the  per 
formance  of  civil  duties,  does  all  the  mischief  that  is  in  its  power  to 
do,  and  brings  into  question,  in  the  face  of  the  State,  its  title  to  civil 
protection. 

Will  it  be  said,  finally,  that  the  Infallibility  touches  only  matter  of 
faith  and  morals?  Only  matter  of  morals!  Will  any  of  the  Roman 
casuists  kindly  acquaint  us  what  are  the  departments  and  functions  of 
human  life  which  do  not  and  cannot  fall  within  the  domain  of  morals? 
Tf  they  will  not  tell  us,  we  must  look  elsewhere.  In  his  work  entitled 
'  Literature  and  Dogma,'*  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold  quaintly  informs  us — 
as  they  tell  us  nowadays  how  many  parts  of  our  poor  bodies  are  solid, 
and  how  many  aqueous — that  about  seventy-five  per  cent,  of  all  we  do 
belongs  to  the  department  of  "conduct."  Conduct  and  morals,  we 
may  suppose,  are  nearly  co-extensive.  Three-fourths,  then,  of  life  arc 
thus  handed  over.  But  who  will  guarantee  to  us  the  other  fourth  ?  Cer 
tainly  not  St.  Paul ;  who  says,  "  Whether  therefore  ye  eat,  or  drink,  or 
whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God.15  And  "  Whatsoever  ye 
do.  in  word  or  in  deed,  do  all  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  f  No  ! 
Such  a  distinction  would  be  the  unworthy  device  of  a  shallow  policy, 
vainly  used  to  hide  the  daring  of  that  wild  ambition  which  at  Rome, 
not  from  the  throne  but  from  behind  the  throne,  prompts  the  move 
ments  of  the  Vatican.  I  care  not  to  ask  if  there  be  dregs  or  tatters  of 
human  life,  such  as  can  escape  from  the  description  and  boundary  o-f 
morals.  I  submit  that  Duty  is  a  power  which  rises  with  us  in  the 
morning,  and  goes  to  rest  with  us  at  night.  It  is  co-extensive  with  the 
action  of  our  intelligence.  It  is  the  shadow  which  cleaves  to  us  go 
where  we  will,  and  which  only  leaves  us  when  we  leave  the  light  of 
life.  So  then  it  is  the  supreme  direction  of  us  in  respect  to  all  Duty, 
which  the  Pontiff  declares  to  belong  to  him,  sacro  approbante  concilio  : 
and  this  declaration  he  makes,  not  as  an  otiose  opinion  of  the  schools, 
but  cunctis  fidelibus  credendam  et  tenendam. 

But  we  shall  now  see  that,  even  if  a  loophole  had  at  this  point  been 
left  unclosed,  the  void  is  supplied  by  another  provision  of  the  Decrees* 
While  the  reach  of  the  Infallibility  is  as  wide  as  it  may  please  the 
Pope,  or  those  who  may  prompt  the  Pope,  to  make  it,  there  is  some 
thing  wider  still,  and  that  is  the  claim  to  an  absolute  and  entire 
Obedience.  This  Obedience  is  to  be  rendered  to  his  orders  in  the  cases 
I  shall  proceed  to  point  out,  without  any  qualifying  condition,  such  as 
the  ex  cathedra.  The  sounding  name  of  Infallibility  has  so  fascinated 
the  public  mind,  and  riveted  it  on  the  Fourth  Chapter  of  the  Constitu 
tion  de  Ecchsia,  that  its  near  neighbour,  the  Third  Chapter,  has,  at 
*  Pages  15,  44.  f  *  Cor.  x.  31 ;  Col.  iii.  7.  ; 


18  THE    VATICAN    DECREES 

least  in  my  opinion,  received  very  much  less  than  justice.     Let  us  turn 
to  it. 

"  Cujuscunque  ritus  et  dignitatis  pastores  atque  fideles,  tarn  seorsurn 
singuli  quam  simul  omnes,  officio  hierarchicae  subordinations  verceque  obe- 
dientiae  obstringuntur,  non  solum  in  rebus,  quae  ad  fidem  et  mores,  sed  etiarn 
in  iis,  quae  ad  disciplinam  et  regimen  Ecclesiae  per  totum  orbem  diffusae  per 
tinent Hacc  est  Catholicae  veritatis  doctrina,  a  qu£  deviare,  salva  fide 

atque  salute,  nemo  potest.  .  .  . 

"  Docemus  etiam  et  declaramus  eum  esse  judicem  supremum  fidelium,  et  in 
omnibus  causis  ad  examen  ecclesiasticum  spectantibus  ad  ipsius  posse  judicium 
cecurri :  Sedis  vero  Apostolicae,  cujus  auctoritate  major  non  est,  judicium  a 
oemine  fore  retractandum.  Neque  cuiquam  de  ejus  licere  judicare  judicio."  * 

Even,  therefore,  where  the  judgments  of  the  Pope  do  not  present  the 
credentials  of  infallibility,  they  are  unappealable  and  irreversible  :  no 
person  may  pass  judgment  upon  them  ;  and  all  men,  clerical  and  lay, 
dispersedly  or  in  the  aggregate,  are  bound  truly  to  obey  them;  and 
from  this  rule  of  Catholic  truth  no  man  can  depart,  save  at  the  peril  of 
his  salvation.  Surely,  it  is  allowable  to  say  that  this  Third  Chapter  on 
universal  obedience  is  a  formidable  rival  to  the  Fourth  Chapter  on 
Infallibility.  Indeed,  to  an  observer  from  without,  it  seems  to  leave 
the  dignity  to  the  other,  but  to  reserve  the  stringency  and  efficiency  to 
itself.  The  Fourth  Chapter  is  the  Merovingian  Monarch ;  the  third  is 
the  Carolingian  Mayor  of  the  Palace.  The  fourth  has  an  overawing 
splendour;  the  third,  an  iron  gripe.  Little  does  it  matter  to  me 
whether  my  superior  claims  infallibility,  so  long  as  he  is  entitled  to 
demand  and  exact  conformity.  This,  it  will  be  observed,  he  demands 
even  in  cases  not  covered  by  his  infallibility ;  cases,  therefore,  in  which 
he  admits  it  to  be  possible  that  he  may  be  wrong,  but  finds  it  in 
tolerable  to  be  told  so.  As  he  must  be  obeyed  in  all  his  judgments 
though  not  ex  cathedra,  it  seems  a  pity  he  could  not  likewise  give  the 
comforting  assurance  that,  they  are  all  certain  to  be  right. 

But  why  this  ostensible  reduplication,  this  apparent  surplusage  ? 
Why  did  the  astute  contrivers  of  this  tangled  scheme  conclude  that 
they  could  not  afford  to  rest  content  with  pledging  the  Council  to  In 
fallibility  in  terms  which  are  not  only  wide  to  a  high  degree,  but  elastic 
beyond  all  measure  ? 

Though  they  must  have  known  perfectly  well  that  "faith  and 
morals  "  carried  everything,  or  everything  worth  having,  in  the  purely 
individual  sphere,  they  also  knew  just  as  well  that,  even  where  the 
individual  was  subjugated,  they  might  and  would  still  have  to  deal 
with  the  State. 

In  mediaeval  history,  this  distinction  is  not  only  clear,  but  glaring. 
Outside  the  borders  of  some  narrow  and  proscribed  sect,  now  and  then 
emerging,  we  never,  or  scarcely  ever,  hear  of  private  and  personal  re 
sistance  to  the  Pope.  The  manful  "Protestantism"  of  mediaeval  times 
had  its  activity  almost  entirely  in  the  sphere  of  public,  national,  and 
state  rights.  Too  much  attention,  in  my  opinion,  cannot  be  fastened 
on  this  point.  It  is  the  very  root  and  kernel  of  the  matter.  Individual 

*  <  Dogmatic  Constitutions,'  &c.,  c.  iii.     Dublin,  1870,  pp.  80-32. 


IN   THEIE   BEARING   ON   CIVIL   ALLEGIANCE.  19 

servitude)  however  abject,  will  not  satisfy  the  party  now  dominant  in 
the  Latin  Church :  the  State  must  also  be  a  slave. 

Our  Saviour  had  recognised  as  distinct  the  two  provinces  of  the  civil 
rule  and  the  Church:  had  nowhere  intimated  that  the  spiritual 
authority  was  to  claim  the  disposal  of  physical  force,  and  to  control  in 
its  own  domain  the  authority  which  is  alone  responsible  for  external 
peace,  order,  and  safety  among  civilised  communities  of  men.  It  has 
been  alike  the  peculiarity,  the  pride,  and  the  misfortune  of  the  Boman 
Church,  among  Christian  communities,  to  allow  to  itself  an  unbounded 
use,  as  far  as  its  power  would  go,  of  earthly  instruments  for  spiritual 
ends.  We  have  seen  with  what  ample  assurances*  this  nation  and 
Parliament  were  fed  in  1826  ;  how  well  and  roundly  the  full  and  un 
divided  rights  of  the  civil  power,  and  the  separation  of  the  two  juris 
dictions,  were  affirmed.  All  this  had  at  length  been  undone,  as  far  as 
Popes  could  undo  it,  in  the  Syllabus  and  the  Encyclical.  It  remained 
to  complete  the  undoing,  through  the  subserviency  or  pliability  of  the 
Council. 

And  the  work  is  now  truly  complete.  Lest  it  should  be  said  that 
supremacy  in  faith  and  morals,  full  dominion  over  personal  belief  and 
conduct,  did  not  cover  the  collective  action  of  men  in  States,  a  third 
province  was  opened,  not  indeed  to  the  abstract  assertion  of  Infalli 
bility,  but  to  the  far  more  practical  and  decisive  demand  of  absolute 
Obedience.  And  this  is  the  proper  work  of  the  Third  Chapter,  to 
which  I  am  endeavouring  to  do  a  tardy  justice.  Let  us  listen  again  to 
its  few  but  pregnant  words  on  the  point : 

"  Nou  solum  in  rebus,  quae  ad  fidem  et  mores,  sed  etiam  in  iis,  quae  ad  dis- 
•iplinam  et  regimen  Ecclesise  per  totum  orbem  diffusae  pertinent." 

Absolute  obedience,  it  is  boldly  declared,  is  due  to  the  Pope,  at  the 
peril  of  salvation,  not  alone  in  faith,  in  morals,  but  in  all  things  which 
concern  the  discipline  and  government  of  the  Church.  Thus  are  swept 
into  the  Papal  net  whole  multitudes  of  facts,  whole  systems  of  govern 
ment,  prevailing,  though  in  different  degrees,  in  every  country  of  the- 
world.  Even  in  the  United  States,  where  the  severance  between, 
Church  and  State  is  supposed  to  be  complete,  a  long  catalogue  might  be 
drawn  of  subjects  belonging  to  the  domain  and  competency  of  the 
State,  but  also  undeniably  affecting  the  government  of  the  Church; 
such  as,  by  way  of  example,  marriage,  burial,  education,  prison  dis 
cipline,  blasphemy,  poor  relief,  incorporation,  mortmain,  religious 
endowments,  vows  of  celibacy  and  obedience.  In  Europe  the  circle  is- 
far  wider,  the  points  of  contact  and  of  interlacing  almost  innumerable. 
But  on  all  matters,  respecting  which  any  Pope  may  think  proper  to- 
declare  that  they  concern  either  faith,  or  morals,  or  the  government  or 
discipline  of  the  Church,  he  claims,  with  the  approval  of  a  Council  un 
doubtedly  Ecumenical  in  the  Pioman  sense,  the  absolute  obedience,  at 
the  peril  of  salvation,  of  every  member  of  his  communion. 

It  seems  not  as  yet  to  have  been  thought  wise  to  pledge  the  Council 
in  terms  to  the  Syllabus  and  the  Encyclical.  That  achievement  is  pro 
bably  reserved  for  some  one  of  its  sittings  yet  to  come.  In  the  mean- 
*  See  further,  Appendix  B. 


20  THE    VATICAN   DECREES 

time  it  is  well  to  remember,  that  this  claim  in  respect  of  all  things 
affecting  the  discipline  and  government  of  the  Church,  as  well  as  faith 
and  conduct,  is  lodged  in  open  day  by  and  in  the  reign  of  a  Pontiff,  who 
has  condemned  free  speech,  free  writing,  a  free  press,  toleration  of  non 
conformity,,  liberty  of  conscience,  the  study  of  civil  and  philosophical 
matters  in  independence  of  the  ecclesiastical  authority,  marriage  unless 
sacramentally  contracted,  and  the  definition  by  the  State  of  the  civil 
rights  (jura)  of  the  Church ;  who  has  demanded  for  the  Church,  there 
fore,  the  title  to  define  its  own  civil  rights,  together  with  a  divine  right 
to  civil  immunities,  and  a  right  to  use  physical  force ;  and  who  has 
also  proudly  asserted  that  the  Popes  of  the  Middle  Ages  with  their 
councils  did  not  invade  the  rights  of  princes  :  as  for  example,  Gregory 
VII.,  of  the  Emperor  Henry  IV.;  Innocent  III.,  of  Raymond  of  Toulouse; 
Paul  III.,  in  deposing  Henry  VIII. ;  or  Pius  V.,  in  performing  the  like 
paternal  office  for  Elizabeth. 

I  submit,  then,  that  my  fourth  proposition  is  true ;  and  that  England 
is  entitled  to  ask,  and  to  know,  in  what  way  the  obedience  required  by 
the  Pope  and  the  Council  of  the  Vatican  is  to  be  reconciled  with  the 
integrity  of  civil  allegiance  ? 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  Head  of  their  Church,  so  supported  as 
undoubtedly  to  speak  with  its  highest  authority,  claims  from  Roman 
Catholics  a  plenary  obedience  to  whatever  he  may  desire  in  relation  not 
to  faith  but  to  morals,  and  not  only  to  these,  but  to  all  that  concerns 
the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Church :  that,  of  this,  much  lies 
within  the  domain  of  the  State :  that,  to  obviate  all  misapprehension, 
the  Pope  demands  for  himself  the  right  to  determine  the  province  of 
his  own  rights,  and  has  so  defined  it  in  formal  documents,  as  to  war 
rant  any  and  every  invasion  of  the  civil  sphere ;  and  that  this  new 
version  of  the  principles  of  the  Papal  Church  inexorably  binds  its 
members  to  the  admission  of  these  exorbitant  claims,  without  any 
refuge  or  reservation  on  behalf  of  their  duty  to  the  Crown. 

Under  circumstances  such  as  these,  it  seems  not  too  much  to  ask  of 
them  to  confirm  the  opinion  which  we,  as  fellow-countrymen,  entertain 
of  them,  by  sweeping  away,  in  such  manner  and  terms  as  they  may 
think  best,  the  presumptive  imputations  which  their  ecclesiastical  rulers 
at  Rome,  acting  autocratically,  appear  to  have  brought  upon  their 
capacity  to  pay  a  solid  and  undivided  allegiance ;  and  to  fulfil  the  en 
gagement  which  their  Bishops,  as  political  sponsors,  promised  and 
declared  for  them  in  1825. 

It  would  be  impertinent,  as  well  as  needless,  to  suggest  what  should 
be  said.  All  that  is  requisite  is  to  indicate  in  substance  that  which 
(if  the  foregoing  argument  be  sound)  is  not  wanted,  and  that  which  is. 
What  is  not  wanted  is  vague  and  general  assertion,  of  whatever  kind, 
and  however  sincere.  What  is  wanted,  and  that  in  the  most  specific 
form  and  the  clearest  terms,  I  take  to  be  one  of  two  things ;  that  is  to 
say,  either — 

I.  A  demonstration  that  neither  in  the  name  of  faith,  nor  in  the 
name  of  morals,  nor  in  the  name  of  the  government  or  discipline  of  the 
Church,  is  the  Pope  of  Rome  able,  by  virtue  of  the  powers  asserted  for 
him  by  the  Vatican  decree,  to  make  any  claim  upon  tiiose  who  adhere 


IN   THEIR   BEARING   ON   CIVIL   ALLEGIANCE.  21 

to  his  communion,  of  such  a  nature  as  can  impair  the  integrity  of  their  ";, 
civil  allegiance  ;  or  else, 

II.  That,  if  and  when  such  claim  is  made,  it  will  even  although  rest 
ing  on  the  definitions  of  the  Vatican,  be  repelled  and  rejected ;  just  as 
Bishop  Doyle,  when  he  was  asked  what  the  Roman  Catholic  clergy 
would  do  if  the  Pope  intermeddled  with  their  religion,  replied  frankly, 
"The  consequence  would  be,  that  we  should  oppose  him  by  every 
means  in  our  power,  even  by  the  exercise  of  our  spiritual  authority.* 

In  the  absence  of  explicit  assurances  to  this  effect,  we  should  appear 
to  be  led,  nay,  driven,  by  just  reasoning  upon  that  documentary 
evidence,  to  the  conclusions : — 

1.  That  the  Pope,  authorised  by  his  Council,  claims  for  himself  the 
domain  (a)  of  faith,  (6)  of  morals,  (c)  of  all  that  concerns  the  govern 
ment  and  discipline  of  the  Church. 

2.  That  he  in  like  manner  claims  the  power  of  determining  the  limits 
of  those  domains. 

3.  That  he  does  not  sever  them,  by  any  acknowledged  or  intelligible 
line,  from  the  domains  of  civil  duty  and  allegiance. 

4.  That  he  therefore  claims,  and  claims  from  the  month  of  July, 
1870,  onwards  with  plenary  authority,  from  every  convert  and  member 
of  his  Church,  that  he  shall  "  place  his  loyalty  and  civil  duty  at  the 
mercy  of  another  : "  that  other  being  himself. 

V.  BEING  TEUE,  ARE  THE  PROPOSITIONS  MATERIAL?  ' 

But  next,  if  these  propositions  be  true,  are  they  also  material  ?  The 
claims  cannot,  as  I  much  fear,  be  denied  to  have  been  made.  It  cannot 
be  denied  that  the  Bishops,  who  govern  in  things  spiritual  more  than 
five  millions  (or  nearly  one-sixth)  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  United 
Kingdom,  have  in  some  cases  promoted,  in  all  cases  accepted,  these 
claims.  It  has  been  a  favourite  purpose  of  my  life  not  to  conjure  up, 
but  to  conjure  down,  public  alarms.  I  am  not  now  going  to  pretend 
that  either  foreign  foe  or  domestic  treason  can,  at  the  bidding  of  the 
Court  of  Rome,  disturb  these  peaceful  shores.  But  though  such  fears 
may  be  visionary,  it  is  more  visionary  still  to  suppose  for  one  moment 
that  the  claims  of  Gregory  VII.,  of  Innocent  III.,  and  of  Boniface  VIIL, 
have  been  disinterred,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  like  hideous  mummies 
picked  out  of  Egyptian  sarcophagi,  in  the  interests  of  archaeology,  or 
without  a  definite  and  practical  aim.  As  rational  beings,  we  must  rest 
assured  that  only  with  a  very  clearly  conceived  and  foregone  purpose 
have  these  astonishing  reassertions  been  paraded  before  the  world. 
What  is  that  purpose? 

I  can  well  believe  that  it  is  in  part  theological.  There  have  always 
been,  and  there  still  are,  no  small  proportion  of  our  race,  and  those  by 
no  means  in  all  respects  the  worst,  who  are  sorely  open  to  the  tempta 
tion,-  especially  in  times  of  religions  disturbance,  to  discharge  their 
spiritual  responsibilities  by  power  of  attorney.  As  advertising  Houses 
find  custom  in  proportion,  not  so  much  to  the  solidity  of  their  resources 
as  to  the  magniloquence  of  their  promises  and  assurances,  so  theological 
*  '  Report,'  March  18,  1826,  p.  191. 


22  THE    VATICAN    DECREES 

boldness  in  the  extension  of  such  claims  is  sure  to  pay,  by  widening 
certain  circles  of  devoted  adherents,  however  it  may  repel  the  mass  of 
mankii  d.  There  were  two  special  encouragements  to  this  enterprise 
at  the  present  day  :  one  of  them  the  perhaps  unconscious  but  manifest 
leaning  of  some,  outside  the  Roman  precinct,  to  undue  exaltation  of 
Church  power ;  the  other  the  reaction,  which  is  and  must  be  brought 
about  in  favour  of  superstition,  by  the  levity  of  the  destructive  specu 
lations  so  widely  current,  and  the  notable  hardihood  of  the  anti- 
Christian  writing  of  the  day. 

But  it  is  impossible  to  account  sufficiently  in  this  manner  for  the 
particular  course  which  has  been  actually  pursued  by  the  Roman 
Court.  All  morbid  spiritual  appetites  would  have  been  amply  satisfied 
by  claims  to  infallibility  in  creed,  to  the  prerogative  of  miracle,  to 
dominion  over  the  unseen  world.  In  truth  there  was  occasion,  in  this 
view,  for  nothing,  except  a  liberal  supply  of  Salmonean  thunder : — 
"  Dum  flammas  Joyis,  et  sonitus  imitatur  Olympi."  * 

All  this  could  have  been  managed  by  a  few  Tetzels,  judiciously 
distributed  over  Europe.  Therefore  the  question  still  remains,  Why 
did  that  Court,  with  policy  for  ever  in  its  eye,  lodge  such  formidable 
demands  for  power  of  the  vulgar  kind  in  that  sphere  which  is  visible, 
and  where  hard  knocks  can  undoubtedly  be  given  as  well  as 
received  ? 

It  must  be  for  some  political  object,  of  a  very  tangible  kind,  that 
the  risks  of  so  daring  a  raid  upon  the  civil  sphere  have  been  de 
liberately  run. 

A  daring  raid  it  is.  For  it  is  most  evident  that  the  very  assertion, 
®f  principles  which  establish  an  exemption  from  allegiance,  or  which 
impair  its  completeness,  goes,  in  many  other  countries  of  Europe,  far 
more  directly  than  with  us,  to  the  creation  of  political  strife,  and  to 
dangers  of  the  most  material  and  tangible  kind.  The  struggle,  now 
proceeding  in  Germany,  at  once  occurs  to  the  mind  as  a  palmary 
instance.  I  am  not  competent  to  give  any  opinion  upon  the  particulars 
of  that  struggle.  The  institutions  of  Germany,  and  the  relative 
estimate  of  State  power  and  individual  freedom,  are  materially  different 
from  ours.  But  I  must  say  as  much  as  this.  First,  it  is  not  Prussia 
alone  that  is  touched ;  elsewhere,  too,  the  bone  lies  ready,  though  the 
contention  may  be  delayed.  In  other  JStates,  in  Austria  particularly, 
there  are  recent  laws  in  force,  raising  much  the  ?ame  issues  as  the 
Falck  laws  have  raised.  But  the  Roman  Court  possesses  in  perfection 
one  art,  the  art  of  waiting ;  and  it  is  her  wise  maxim  to  fight  but  one 
enemy  at  a  time.  Secondly,  if  I  have  truly  represented  the  claims 
promulgated  from  the  Vatican,  it  is  difficult  to  deny  that  those  claims, 
and  the  power  which  has  made  them,  are  primarily  responsible  for  the 
pains  and  perils,  whatever  they  may  be,  of  the  present  conflict  between 
German  and  He-man  enactments.  And  that  which  was  once  truly  said 
of  France,  mny  now  also  be  said  with  not  less  truth  of  Germany  :  when 
Germany  is  disquieted,  Europe  cannot  be  at  rest. 

I  should  feel  less  anxiety  on  this  subject  had  the  Supreme  Pontiff 
*  jEn.  ri.  586. 


IN   THEIR    BEARING   ON   CIVIL   ALLEGIANCE.  23 

frankly  recognised  his  altered  position  since  the  events  of  1870  ;  and, 
in  language  as  clear,  if  not  as  emphatic,  as  that  in  which  he  has  pro 
scribed  modern  civilisation,  given  to  Europe  the  assurance  that  he  would 
be  no  party  to  the  re-establishment  by  blood  and  violence  of  the  Tem 
poral  Power  of  the  Church.  It  is  easy  to  conceive  that  his  personal 
benevolence,  no  less  than  his  feelings  as  an  Italian,  must  have  inclined 
him  individually  towards  a  course  so  humane ;  and  I  should  add,  if  I 
might  do  it  without  presumption,  so  prudent.  With  what  appears  to 
•an  English  eye  a  lavish  prodigality,  successive  Italian  Governments 
have  made  over  the  ecclesiastical  powers  and  privileges  of  the  Monarchy, 
not  to  the  Church  of  the  country  for  the  revival  of  the  ancient,  popular, 
and  self-governing  elements  of  its  constitution,  but  to  the  Papal  Chair, 
for  the  establishment  of  ecclesiastical  despotism,  and  the  suppression  of 
•the  last  vestiges  of  independence.  This  course,  so  difficult  for  a  foreigner 
to  appreciate,  or  even  to  justify,  has  been  met,  not  by  reciprocal  con 
ciliation,  but  by  a  constant  fire  of  denunciations  and  complaints.  When 
the  tone  of  these  denunciations  and  complaints  is  compared  with  the 
language  of  the  authorised  and  favoured  Papal  organs  in  the  press,  and 
of  the  Ultramontane  party  (now  the  sole  legitimate  party  of  the  Latin 
Church)  throughout  Europe,  it  leads  many  to  the  painful  and  revolting 
conclusion  that  there  is  a  fixed  purpose  among  the  secret  inspirers  of 
Roman  policy  to  pursue,  by  the  road  of  force,  upon  the  arrival  of  any 
favourable  opportunity,  the  favourite  project  of  re-erecting  the  terrestrial 
throne  of  the  Popedom,  even  if  it  can  only  be  re-erected  on  the  ashes  of 
the  city,  and  amidst  the  whitening  bones  of  the  people.* 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  or  contemplate  the  effects  of  such  an. 
•endeavour.  But  the  existence  at  this  day  of  the  policy,  even  in  bare 
idea,  is  itself  a  portentous  evil.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  it  is  an 
incentive  to  general  disturbance,  a  premium  upon  European  wars.  It 
.is  in  my  opinion  not  sanguine  only,  but  almost  ridiculous  to  imagine 
that  such  a  project  could  eventually  succeed;  but  it  is  difficult  to  over 
estimate  the  effect  which  it  might  produce  in  generating  and  exaspe 
rating  strife.  It  might  even,  to  some  extent,  disturb  and  paralyse  the 
action  of  such  Governments  as  might  interpose  for  no  separate  purpose 
of  their  own,  but  only  with  a  view  to  the  maintenance  or  restoration  of 
the  general  peace.  If  the  baleful  Power  which  is  expressed  by  the 
phrase  Curia  J'omana,  and  not  at  all  adequately  rendered  in  its  historic 
force  by  the  usual  English  equivalent  "  Court  of  Rome,"  really  enter 
tains  the  scheme,  it  doubtless  counts  on  the  support  in  every  country 
of  an  organised  and  devoted  party ;  which,  when  it  can  command  the 
scales  of  political  power,  will  promote  interference,  and,  when  it  is  in  a 
minority,  will  work  for  securing  neutrality.  As  the  peace  of  Europe 
snay  be  in  jeopardy,  and  as  the  duties  even  of  England,  as  one  (so  to 
speak)  of  its  constabulary  authorities,  might  come  to  be  in  question,  it 
would  be  most  interesting  to  know  the  mental  attitude  of  our  Roman 
Catholic  fellow-countrymen  in  England  and  Ireland  with  reference  to 
the  subject ;  and  it  seems  to  be  one,  on  which  we  are  entitled  to  solicit 
information. 

Ear  there  cannot  be  the  smallest  doubt  that  the  temporal  power  of 
*  Appendix  C. 


24:  THE    VATICAN    DECREES 

the  Popedom  comes  withiu  the  true  meaning  of  the  word^  used  at  the 
Vatican  to  describe  the  subjects  on  which  the  Pope  is  authorised  to 
claim,  under  awful  sanctions,  the  obedience  of  the  "  faithful."  It  is- 
even  possible  that  we  have  here  the  key  to  the  enlargement  of  the 
province  of  Obedience  beyond  the  limits  of  Infallibility,  and  to  the 
introduction  of  the  remarkable  phrase  ad  disciplinam  et  regimen 
Ecdesice.  No  impartial  person  can  deny  that  the  question  of  the 
temporal  power  very  evidently  concerns  the  discipline  and  government 
of  the  Church — concerns  it,  and  most  mischievously  as  I  should  venture 
to  think;  but  in  the  opinion,  up  to  a  late  date,  of  many  Roman 
Catholics,  not  only  most  beneficially,  but  even  essentially.  Let  it  be 
remembered,  that  such  a  man  as  the  late  Count  Montalembert,  who  in 
his  general  politics  was  of  the  Liberal  party,  did  not  scruple  to  hold 
that  the  millions  of  Roman  Catholics  throughout  the  world  were  co 
partners  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  States  of  the  Church  in  regard  to 
their  civil  government ;  and,  as  constituting  the  vast  majority,  were 
of  course  entitled  to  override  them.  It  was  also  rather  commonly  held, 
a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  that  the  question  of  the  States  of  the 
Church  was  one  with  which  none  but  Roman  Catholic  Powers  could 
have  anything  to  do.  This  doctrine,  I  must  own,  was  to  me  at  all 
times  unintelligible.  It  is  now,  to  say  the  least,  hopelessly  and 
irrecoverably  obsolete. 

Archbishop  Manning,  who  is  the  head  of  the  Papal  Church  in 
England,  and  whose  ecclesiastical  tone  is  supposed  to  be  in  the  closes* 
accordance  with  that  of  his  headquarters,  has  not  thought  it  too  much 
to  say  that  the  civil  order  of  all  Christendom  is  the  offspring  of  the 
Temporal  Power,  and  has  the  Temporal  Power  for  its  keystone ;  that 
on  the  destruction  of  the  Temporal  Power  "  the  laws  of  nations  would 
at  once  fall  in  ruins;"  that  (our  old  friend)  the  deposing  Power 
"taught  subjects  obedience  and  princes  clemency."*  Nay,  this  high 
authority  has  proceeded  further ;  and  has  elevated  the  Temporal  PoweT 
to  the  rank  of  necessary  doctrine. 

"  The  Catholic  Church  cannot  be  silent,  it  cannot  hold  its  peace ;  it  cannot 
cease  to  preach  the  doctrines  of  Revelation,  not  only  of  the  Trinity  and  of  the 
Incarnation,  but  likewise  of  the  Seven  Sacraments,  and  of  the  Infallibility  of 
the  Church  of  God,  and  of  the  necessity  of  Unity,  and  of  the  Sovereignty,  both 
spiritual  and  temporal,  of  the  Holy  See."  f 

I  never,  for  my  own  part,  heard  that  the  work  containing  this  re 
markable  passage  was  placed  in  the  *  Index  Prohibitorum  Librorum.' 
On  the  contrary,  its  distinguished  author  was  elevated,  on  the  first 
opportunity,  to  the  headship  of  the  Roman  Episcopacy  in  England,  and 
to  the  guidance  of  the  million  or  thereabouts  of  souls  in  its  communion. 
And  the  more  recent  utterances  of  the-  oracle  have  not  descended  from 
the  high  level  of  those  already  cited.  They  have,  indeed,  the  recom 
mendation  of  a  comment,  not  without  fair  claims  to  authority,  on  the 
recent  declarations  of  the  Pope  and  the  Council ;  and  of  one  which  goes 
*  '  Three  Lectures  on  the  Temporal  Sovereignty  of  the  Popes,'  1860, 
pp.  34,  46,  47,  58-9,  63. 

f  '  The  present  Crisis  of  the  Holy  See.'  By  H.  E.  Manning,  D.D.  London, 
1861,  p.  73. 


IN    THEIR   BEARING    ON    CIVIL   ALLEGIANCE.  25 

to  prove  how  far  I  am  from  having  exaggerated  or  strained  in  the  fore 
going  pages  the  meaning  of  those  declarations.  Especially  does  this 
hold  good  on  the  one  point,  the  most  vital  of  the  whole — the  title  to 
define  the  border  line  of  the  two  provinces,  which  the  Archbishop  not 
-unfairly  takes  to  be  the  true  criterion  of  supremacy,  as  between  rival 
powers  like  the  Church  and  the  State. 

"  If,  then,  the  civil  power  be  not  competent  to  decide  the  limits  of  the 
spiritual  power,  and  if  the  spiritual  power  can  define,  with  a  divine  certainty, 
its  own  limits,  it  is  evidently  supreme.  Or,  in  other  words,  the  spiritual 
power  knows,  with  divine  certainty,  the  limits  of  its  own  jurisdiction :  and  it 
knows  therefore  the  limits  and  the  competence  of  the  civil  power.  It  is 
thereby,  in  matters  of  religion  and  conscience,  supreme.  I  do  not  see  how 
this  can  be  denied  without  denying  Christianity.  And  if  this  be  so,  this  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Bull  Unam  Sanctam*  and  of  the  Syllabus,  and  of  the  Vatican 
•Council.  It  is,  in  fact,  Ultramontanism,  for  this  term  means  neither  less  nor  - 
more.  The  Church,  therefore,  is  separate  and  supreme. 

"  Let  us  then  ascertain  somewhat  further,  what  is  the  meaning  of  supreme. 
Any  power  which  is  independent,  and  can  alone  fix  the  limits  of  its  own  juris 
diction,  and  can  thereby  fix  the  limits  of  all  other  jurisdictions,  is,  ipso  facto, 
supreme.^  But  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  within  the  sphere  of  revelation,  of 
faith  and  morals,  is  all  this,  or  is  nothing,  or  worse  than  nothing,  an  imposture 
and  an  usurpation — that  is,  it  is  Christ  or  Antichrist.''^ 

But  the  whole  pamphlet  should  be  read  by  those  who  desire  to  know 
the  true  sense  of  the  Papal  declarations  and  Vatican  decrees,  as  they  are 
understood  by  the  most  favoured  ecclesiastics  ;  understood,  I  am  bound 
to  own,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  in  their  natural,  legitimate  and  inevitable 
sense.  Such  readers  will  be  assisted  by  the  treatise  in  seeing  clearly, 
and  in  admitting  frankly  that,  whatever  demands  may  hereafter,  and  in 
whatever  circumstances,  be  made  upon  us,  we  shall  be  unable  to 
advance  with  any  fairness  the  plea  that  it  has  been  done  without 
due  notice. 

There  are  millions  upon  millions  of  the  Protestants  of  this  country, 
who  would  agree  with  Archbishop  Manning,  if  he  were  simply  telling  us 
that  Divine  truth  is  not  to  be  sought  from  the  lips  of  the  State,  nor  to 
be  sacrificed  at  its  command.  But  those  millions  would  tell  him,  in 
seturn,  that  the  State,  as  the  power  which  is  alone  responsible  for  the 
external  order  of  the  world,  can  alone  conclusively  and  finally  be  com 
petent  to  determine  what  is  to  take  place  in  the  sphere  of  that  external 
order. 

I  have  shown,  then,  that  the  Propositions,  especially  that  which  has 
been  felt  to  be  the  chief  one  among  them,  being  true,  are  also  material ; 
material  to  be  generally  known,  and  clearly  understood,  and  well  con 
sidered,  on  civil  grounds  ;  inasmuch  as  they  invade,  at  a  multitude  of 
points,  the  civil  sphere,  and  seem  even  to  have  no  very  remote  or 
shadowy  connection  with  the  future  peace  and  security  of  Christendom. 

*  On  the  Bull  Unam  Sanctam,  "  of  a  most  odious  kind ;"  see  Bishop  Doyle's 
Essay,  already  cited.  He  thus  describes  it. 

f  "  The  italics  are  not  in  the  original. 

j  'Cs&sarism  and  Ultramontanism.'  By  Archbishop  Manning,  1874, 
pp.  35-6. 


26  THE    VATICAN    DECREES 

VI.  WERE-  THE  PROPOSITIONS  PROPER  TO  BE  SET  FORTH  BY  THE 
PRESEKT  WRITER? 

There  remains  yet  before  us  only  the  shortest  and  least  significant 
portion  of  the  inquiry,  namely,  whether  these  things,  being  true,  and 
being  material  to  be  said,  were  also  proper  to  be  said  by  me.  I  must 
ask  pardon  if  a  tone  of  egotism  be  detected  in  this  necessarily  subor 
dinate  portion  of  my  remarks. 

For  thirty  years,  and  in  a  great  variety  of  circumstances,  in  office  and 
as  an  independent  Member  of  Parliament,  in  majorities  and  in  small 
minorities,  and  during  the  larger  portion  of  the  time*  as  the  represen 
tative  of  a  great  constituency,  mainly  clerical,  1  have,  with  others, 
laboured  to  maintain  and  extend  the  civil  rights  of  my  Roman  Catholic 
fellow-countrymen.  The  Liberal  party  of  this  country,  with  which  I 
have  been  commonly  associated,  has  suffered,  and  sometimes  suffered 
heavily,  in  public  favour  and  in  influence,  from  the  belief  that  it  was 
too  ardent  in  the  pursuit  of  that  policy  ;  while  at  the  same  time  it  has 
always  been  in  the  worst  odour  with  the  Court  of  Rome,  in  consequence 
of  its  (I  hope)  unalterable  attachment  to  Italian  liberty  and  indepen 
dence.  I  have  sometimes  been  the  spokesman  of  that  party  in  recom 
mendations  which  have  tended  to  foster  in  fact  the  imputation  I  have 
mentioned,  though  not  to  warrant  it  as  matter  of  reason.  But  it  has 
existed  in  fact.  So  that  while  (as  I  think)  general  justice  to  society 
required  that  these  things  which  1  have  now  set  forth  should  be  written, 
special  justice,  as  towards  the  party  to  which  I  am  loyally  attached,  and 
which  I  may  have  had  a  share  in  thus  placing  at  a  disadvantage  before 
our  countrymen,  made  it,  to  say  the  least,  becoming  that  I  should  not 
shrink  from  writing  them. 

In  discharging  that  office,  I  have  sought  to  perform  the  part  .not  of  a 
theological  partisan,  but  simply  of  a  good  citizen ;  of  one  hopeful  that 
many  of  his  Roman  Catholic  friends  and  fellow-countrymen,  who  are., 
to  say  the  least  of  it,  as  good  citizens  as  himself,  may  perceive  that  the 
case  is  not  a  frivolous  case,  but  one  that  merits  their  attention. 

I  will  next  proceed  to  give  the  reason  why,  up  to  a  recent  date, 
I  have  thought  it  right  in  the  main  to  leave  to  any  others,  who  might 
feel  it,  the  duty  of  dealing  in  detail  with  this  question. 

The  great  change,  which  seems  to  me  to  have  been  brought  about  in 
the  position  of  Roman  Catholic  Christians  as  citizens,  reached  its  con 
summation,  and  came  into  full  operation  in  July  1870,  by  the^pro- 
ceedings  or  so-called  decrees  of  the  Vatican  Council. 

Up  to  that  time,  opinion  in  the  Roman  Church  on  all  matters  in 
volving  civil  liberty,  though  partially  and  sometimes  widely  intimidated, 
was  free  wherever  it  was  resolute.  During  the  Middle  Ages,  heresy  was 
often  extinguished  in  blood,  but  in  every  Cisalpine  country  a  principle  of 
liberty,  to  a  great  extent,  held  its  own,  and  national  life  refused  to  be  put 
down.  Nay  more,  these  precious  and  inestimable  gifts  had  not  infrequently 
for  their  champions  a  local  prelacy  and  clergy.  The  Constitutions 
of  Clarendon,  cursed  from  the  Papal  throne,  were  the  work  of  the  Eng 
lish  Bishops.  Stephen  Langton,  appointed  directly,  through  an  extra- 

*  From  1847  to  1865  I  sat  for  the  University  of  Oxford. 


IN    THEIR    BEARING    ON    CIVIL    ALLEGIANCE.  27 

ordinary  stretch  of  power,  by  Innocent  III.,  to  the  See  of  Canterbury, 
headed  the  -Barons  of  England  in  extorting  from  the  Papal  minion  John, 
the  worst  and  basest  of  all  our  Sovereigns,  that  Magna  Charta,  which 
the  Pope  at  once  visited  with  his  anathemas.  In  the  reign  of  Henry 
VIII. ,  it  was  Tunstal,  Bishop  of  Durham,  who  first  wrote  against  the 
Papal  domination.  Tunstal  was  followed  by  Gardiner;  and  even  the 
recognition  of  the  Royal  Headship  was  voted  by  the  clergy,  not  under 
Cranmer,  but  under  his  unsuspected  predecessor  Warham.  Strong  and 
domineering  as  was  the  high  Papal  party  in  those  centuries,  the  resist 
ance  was  manful.  Thrice  in  history,  it  seemed  as  if  what  we  may 
call  the  Constitutional  party  in  the  Church  was  about  to  triumph : 
first  at  the  epoch  of  the  Council  of  Constance  ;  secondly,  when  the 
French  Episcopate  was  in  conflict  with  Pope  Innocent  XL;  thirdly, 
when  Clement  XIV.  levelled  with  the  dust  the  deadliest  foes  that 
mental  and  moral  liberty  have  ever  known.  But  from  July  1870,  this 
state  of  things  has  passed  away,  and  the  death-warrant  of  that  Con 
stitutional  party  has  been  signed,  and  sealed,  and  promulgated  in  form. 
Before  that  time  arrived,  although  I  had  used  expressions  sufficiently 
indicative  as  to  the  tendency  of  things  in  the  great  Latin  Communion, 
vet  I  had  for  very  many  years  felt  it  to  be  the  rirst  and  paramount  duty 
•of  the  British  Legislature,  whatever  Rome  might  say  or  do,  to  give  to 
Ireland  all  that  justice  could  demand,  in  regard  to  matters  of  con 
science  and  of  civil  equality,  and  thus  to  set  herself  right  in  the  opinion 
of  the  civilised  world.  So  far  from  seeing,  what  some  believed  they 
saw,  a  spirit  of  unworthy  compliance  in  such  a  course,  it  appeared 
to  me  the  only  one  which  suited  either  the  dignity  or  the  duty  of  my 
.country.  While  this  debt  remained  unpaid,  both  before  and  after  1870, 
I  did  not  think  it  my  province  to  open  formally  a  line  of  argument 
on  a  question  of  prospective  rather  than  immediate  moment,  which 
might  have  prejudiced  the  matter  of  duty  lying  nearest  our  hand,  and 
morally  injured  Great  Britain  not  less  than  Ireland,  Churchmen  and 
Nonconformists  not  less  than  adherents  of  the  Papal  Communion,  by 
slackening  the  disposition  to  pay  the  debt  of  justice.  When  Parliament 
had  passed  the  Church  Act  of  I860  and  the  Land  Act  of  1870,  there 
remained  only,  under  the  great  head  of  Imperial  equity,  one  serious 
question  to  be  dealt  with — that  of  the  higher  Education.  I  consider 
that  the  Liberal  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  the  Govern 
ment  to  which  I  had  the  honour  and  satisfaction  to  belong,  formally 
tendered  payment  in  full  of  this  portion  of  the  debt  by  the  Irish 
University  Bill  of  February  1873.  Some  indeed  think,  that  it  was 
overpaid :  a  question  into  which  this  is  manifestly  not  the  place  to 
enter.  But  the  Roman  Catholic  prelacy  of  Ireland  thought  fit  to  pro 
cure  the  rejection  of  that  measure,  by  the  direct  influence  which  they 
exercised  over  a  certain  number  of  Irish  Members  of  Parliament,  and 
by  the  temptation  which  they  thus  offered — the  bid,  in  effect,  which 
(to  use  a  homely  phrase)  they  made,  to  attract  the  support  of  the  Tory 
Opposition.  Their  efforts  were  crowned  with  a  complete  success.  From 
that  time  forward  I  have  felt  that  the  situation  was  changed,  and  that 
important  matters  would  have  to  be  cleared  by  suitable  explanations. 
The  debt  to  Ireland  had  been  paid:  a  debt  to  the  country  at  large 


28  THE    VATICAN    DECREES 

had  still  to  be  disposed  of,  and  this  has  come  to  be  the 'duty 
of  the  hour.  So  long,  indeed,  as  I  continued  to  be  Prime  Minister, 
I  should  not  have  considered  a  broad  political  discussion  on  a  general 
question  suitable  to  proceed 'from  me;  while  neither  I  nor  (I  am 
certain)  my  colleagues  would  have  been  disposed  to  run  the  risk  of 
stirring  popular  passions  by  a  vulgar  and  unexplained  appeal.  But 
every  difficulty,  arising  from  the  necessary  limitations  of  an  official 
position,  has  now  been  removed. 

VIL  ON  THE  HOME  POLICY  OF  THE  FUTURE. 

I  could  not,  however,  conclude  these  observations  without  anticipat 
ing  and  answering  an  inquiry  they  suggest.  "Are  they,  then,"  it  will 
be  asked,  "  a  recantation  and  a  regret ;  and  what  are  they  meant  to 
recommend  as  the  policy  of  the  future  ?  "  My  reply  shall  be  succinct 
and  plain.  Of  what  the  Liberal  party  has  accomplished,  by  word  or 
deed,  in  establishing  the  full  civil  equality  of  Eoman  Catholics,  I  regret 
nothing,  and  I  recant  nothing. 

It  is  certainly  a  political  misfortune  that,  during  the  last  thirty 
years,  a  Church  so  tainted  in  its  views  of  civil  obedience,  and  so  unduly 
capable  of  changing  its  front  and  language  after  Emancipation  from  what 
it  had  been  before,  like  an  actor  who  has  to  perform  several  characters 
in  one  piece,  should  have  acquired  an  extension  of  its  hold  upon  the 
highest  classes  of  this  country.  The  conquests  have  been  chiefly,  as  might 
have  been  expected,  among  women  ;  but  the  number  of  male  converts, 
or  captives  (as  I  might  prefer  to  call  them),  has  not  been  inconsiderable. 
There  is  no  doubt,  that  every  one  of  these  secessions  is  in  the  nature  of 
a  considerable  moral  and  social  severance.  The  breadth  of  this  gap 
varies,  according  to  varieties  of  individual  character.  But  it  is  too 
commonly  a  wide  one.  Too  commonly,  the  spirit  of  the  neophyte  is 
expressed  by  the  words  which  have  become  notorious  :  "  a  Catholic 
first,  an  Englishman  afterwards."  Words  which  properly  convey  no 
more  than  a  truism  ;  for  every  Christian  must  seek  to  place  his  religion 
even  before  his  country  in  his  inner  heart.  But  very  far  from  a  truism 
in  the  sense  in  which  we  have  been  led  to  construe  them.  We  take  them 
to  mean  that  the  "  convert "  intends,  in  case  of  any  conflict  between 
the  Queen  and  the  Pope,  to  follow  the  Pope,  and  let  the  Queen  shift  for 
herself;  which,  happily,  she  can  well  do. 

Usually,  in  this  country,  a  movement  in  the  highest  class  would 
raise  a  presumption  of  a  similar  movement  in  the  mass.  It  is  not  so 
here.  Rumours  have  gone  about  that  the  proportion  of  members  of 
the  Papal  Church  to  the  population  has  increased,  especially  in 
England.  But  these  rumours  would  seem  to  be  confuted  by  authentic 
figures.  The  Roman  Catholic  Marriages,  which  supply  a  competent 
test,  and  which  were  4 '89  per  cent,  of  the  whole  in  1854,  and  4*62  per 
cent,  in  1859,  were  4 '09  per  cent,  in  1869,  and  4 '02  per  cent,  in  1871. 

There  is  something  at  the  least  abnormal  in  such  a  partial  growth, 
taking  effect  as  it  does  among  the  wealthy  and  noble,  while  the  people 
cannot  be  charmed,  by  any  incantation,  into  the  Roman  camp.  The 
original  Gospel  was  supposed  to  be  meant  especially  for  the  poor ;  but 
the  gospel  of  the  nineteenth  century  from  Rome  courts  another  and  less 


IN    THEIR    BEARING    ON    CIVIL    ALLEGIANCE.  29 

modest  destination.     If  the  Pope  does  not  control  more  souls  among  us, 
he  certainly  controls  more  acres. 

The  severance,  however,  of  a  certain  number  of  lords  of  the  soil  from 
those  who  till  it,  can  "be  borne.  And  so  I  trust  will  in  like  manner  be 
endured  the  new  and  very  real  "  aggression "  of  the  principles  pro 
mulgated  by  Papal  authority,  whether  they  are  or  are  not  loyally 
disclaimed.  In  this  matter  each  man  is  his  own  judge  and  his  own 
guide  :  I  can  speak  for  myself.  I  am  no  longer  able  to  say,  as  I 
would  have  said  before  1870,  "  There  is  nothing  in  the  necessary  belief 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  which  can  appear  to  impeach  his  full  civil  title ; 
for,  whatsoever  be  the  follies  of  ecclesiastical  power  in  his  Church, 
his  Church  itself  bas  not  required  of  him,  with  binding  authority,  to 
assent  to  any  principles  inconsistent  with  his  civil  duty."  That  ground 
is  now,  for  the  present  at  least,  cut  from  under  my  feet.  What  then 
is  to  be  our  course  of  policy  hereafter  ?  First  let  me  say  that  as  regards 
the  great  Imperial  settlement,  achieved  by  slow  degrees,  which  has 
admitted  men  of  all  creeds  subsisting  among  us  to  Parliament,  that 
I  conceive  to  be  so  determined  beyond  all  doubt  or  question,  as  to  have 
become  one  of  the  deep  foundation-stones  of  the  existing  Constitution. 
But  inasmuch  as,  short  of  this  great  charter  of  public  liberty,  and  inde 
pendently  of  all  that  has  been  done,  there  are  pending  matters  of  com 
paratively  minor  moment  which  have  been,  or  may  be,  subjects  of 
discussion,  not  without  interest  attaching  to  them,  I  can  suppose  a 
question  to  arise  in  the  minds  of  some.  My  own  views  and  intentions 
in  the  future  are  of  the  smallest  significance.  But,  if  the  arguments  I 
have  here  offered  make  it  my  duty  to  declare  them,  I  say  at  once  the 
future  will  be  exactly  as  the  past :  in  the  little  that  depends  on  me, 
I  shall  be  guided  hereafter,  as  heretofore,  by  the  rule  of  main 
taining  equal  civil  rights  irrespectively  of  religious  differences  ; 
and  shall  resist  all  attempts  to  exclude  the  members  of  the  Roman 
Church  from  the  benefit  of  that  rule.  Indeed  I  may  say  that  I 
have  already  given  conclusive  indications  of  this  view,  by  sup 
porting  in  Parliament,  as  a  Minister,  since  1870,  the  repeal  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  Titles  Act,  for  what  I  think  ample  reasons.  Not  only 
because  the  time  has  not  yet  come  when  we  can  assume  the  conse 
quences  of  the  revolutionary  measures  of  1870  to  have  been  thoroughly 
weighed  and  digested  by  all  capable  men  in  the  Roman  Communion. 
Not  only  because  so  great  a  numerical  proportion  are,  as  I  have 
before  observed,  necessarily  incapable  of  mastering,  and  forming  their 
personal  judgment  upon,  the  case.  Quite  irrespectively  even  of  these 
considerations,  I  hold  that  our  onward  even  course  should  riot  be  changed 
by  follies,  the  consequences  of  which,  if  the  worst  come  to  the  worst, 
this  country  will  have  alike  the  power  and,  in  case  of  need,  the  will  to 
control.  The  State  will,  I  trust,  be  ever  careful  to  leave  the  domain  of 
religious  conscience  free,  and  yet  to  keep  it  to  its  own  domain  ;  and  to 
allow  neither  private  caprice  nor,  above  all,  foreign  arrogance  to  dictate 
to  it  in  the  discharge  of  its  proper  office.  "  England  expects  every  man 
to  do  his  duty ;"  and  none  can  be  so  well  prepared  under  all  circum 
stances  to  exact  its  performance  as  that  Liberal  party,  which  has 
done  the  work  of  justice  alike  for  Nonconformists  and  for  Papal 


30  THE    VATICAN    DECREES 

dissidents,  and  whose  members  have  so  often,  for  the  sake  of  that  work, 
hazarded  their  credit  with  the  markedly  Protestant  constituencies  of 
the  country.  Strong  the  State  of  the  United  Kingdom  has  always 
been  in  material  strength;  and  its  moral  panoply  is  now,  we  may 
hope,  pretty  complete. 

It  is  not  then  for  the  dignity  of  the  Grown  and  people  of  the' United 
Kingdom  to  be  diverted  from  a  path  which  they  have  deliberately 
chosen,  and  which  it  does  not  rest  with  all  the  myrmidons  of  the 
Apostolic  Chamber  either  openly  to  obstruct,  or  secretly  to  undermine. 
It  is  rightfully  to  be  expected,  it  is  greatly  to  be  desired,  that  the 
Roman  Catholics  of  this  country  should  do  in  the  Nineteenth  century 
what  their  forefathers  of  England,  except  a  handful  of  emissaries,  did 
in  the  Sixteenth,  when  they  were  marshalled  in  resistance  to  the 
Armada,  and  in  the  Seventeenth  when,  in  despite  of  the  Papal  Chair, 
they  sat  in  the  House  of  Lords  under  the  Oath  of  Allegiance.  That 
which  we  are  entitled  to  desire,  we  are  entitled  also  to  expect :  indeed, 
to  say  we  did  not  expect  it,  would,  in  my  judgment,  be  the  true  way  of 
conveying  an  "  insult "  to  those  concerned.  In  this  expectation  we 
may  be  partially  disappointed.  Should  those  to  whom  I  appeal,  thus 
unhappily  come  to  bear  witness  in  their  own  persons  to  the  decay  of 
sound,  manly,  true  life  in  their  Church,  it  will  be  their  loss  more  than 
ours.  The  inhabitants  of  these  Islands,  as  a  whole,  are  stable,  though 
sometimes  credulous  and  excitable  ;  resolute,  though  sometimes  boast 
ful  :  and  a  stronghcaded  and  soundhearted  race  will  not  be  hindered, 
either  by  latent  or  by  avowed  dissents,  due  to  the  foreign  influence  of 
a  caste,  from  the  accomplishment  of  its  mission  in  the  world. 


APPENDICES. 


APPENDIX  A. 

The  numbers  here  given  correspond  with  those  of  the  Eighteen  Propositions  'given 

in  the  text,  where  it  would  have  been  less  convenient  to  cite  the  originals. 
1,  2,  3.  "  Ex  qua  omnino  falsa"  socialis  regiminis  idei  haud  timent  erroneam 
illam  fovere  opinionem,  Catholicae  Ecclesiae,  animarumque  saluti  maxime 
«xitialem,  a  rec.  mem.  Gregorio  XIV.  praedecessore  Nostro  deliramentum  appel- 
latam  (eadem  Encycl.  '  Mirari '),  nimirum,  libertatem  conscientise  et  cultuum 
esse  proprium  cujuscunque  hominis  jus,  quod  lege  proclamari,  et  asseri  debet 
in  omni  recte  constitute  societate,  et  jus  civibus  inesse  ad  omnimodam  liber 
tatem  nullst  vel  ecclesiastica,  rel  civili  auctoritate  coarctandam,  quo  suos 
conceptus  quoscumque  sive  voce  sive  typis,  sive  alia  ratione  palam  publiceque 
manifestare  ac  declarare  valeant." — Encyclical  Letter. 

4.  "  Atque  silentio  praeterire  non  possumus  eorum  audaciam,  qui  sanam  non 
sustinentes  doctrinam  '  illis  Apostolicse   Sedis   judiciis,    et    decretis,    quorum 
objectum  ad  bonum  generale  Ecclesiae,  ejusdemque  jura,  ac  disciplinam  spectare 
declaratur,  dummodo  fidei  morumque  dogmata  non   attingat,   posse   assensum 
et  obedientiam  detrectari  absque  peccato,  et  absque  ulll  Catholicae  professionis 
jactura.' " — Ibid. 

5.  "  Ecclesia  non  est  vera  perfectaque  societas  plane  libera,  nee  pollet  suis 
propriis  et  constantibus  juribus  sibi  a  diviuo  suo  Fundatore  collatis,  sed  drills 


APPENDICES.  31 

potestatis  est  definire  quce  sint  Ecclesia?  jura,  ac  limites,  intra  quos  eadem  jura 
exercere  queat." — Syllabus  v. 

6.  "  Roman!  Pontifices   et   Concilia  cecumenica  a  limitibus  suoe   potestatis 
recesserunt,  jura  Principum  usurparunt,  atque  etiam  in  rebus  fidei  et  moruia 
definiendis  errarunt." — Ibid,  xxiii. 

7.  "  Ecclesia  vis  inferendse  potestatem  non  habet,  neque  potestatem  ullam 
temporalem  directam  vel  indirectam." — Ibid.  xxiv. 

8.  "  Praeter  potestatem  episcopatui  inhserentem,    alia   est   attributa    tem- 
poralis  potestas  a  civili  imperio  vel  expresse  vel  tacite  concessa,  revocanda 
propterea,  cum  libuerit,  a  civili  imperio." — Ibid.  xxv. 

9.  "  Ecclesiae  et  personal' am  ecclesiasticarum  immunitas  a  jure  civili  ortuito 
habuit." — Ibid.  xxx. 

10.  "  In  conflictu  legum  utriusque  potestatis,  jus  civile  praevalet." — Ibid,  ilii, 

11.  "  Catholicis  viris  probari  potest  ea  juventutis  instituendae  ratio,  quae  sit 
a  Catholica  fide  et  ab  Ecclesiae  potestate  sejuncta,   quaeque  rerum  dumtaxat, 
naturalium  scientiam  ac  terrenae  socialis  vitae  fines  tantummodo  vel  saltern 
primarium  spectet." — Ibid,  xlviii. 

12.  "  Philosophicarum   rerum   morumque   scientia,    itemque   civiles   leges 
possunt  «t  debeut  a  divina  et  ecclesiastica  auctoritate  declinare." — Ibid.  Ivii. 

13.  "  Matrimonii  sacramentum  non  est  nisi  contractui  accessorium  ab  eoque 
separabile,  ipsumque  sacramentum  in  una  tantum  nuptiali  benedictione  situm 
est." — Ibid.  Ixvi. 

"  Vi  contractus  mere  civilis  potest  inter  Christianos  constare  veri  nominis 
matrimonium ;  falsumque  est,  aut  contractum  matrimonii  inter  Christianos 
semper  esse  sacrameutum,  aut  nullum  esse  contractum,  si  sacramentum 
excludatur." — Ibid.  Ixxiii. 

14.  "  De  temporalis  regni  cum  spirituali  compatibilitate  disputant  inter  so 
Christianae  et  Catholicae  Ecclesiae  filii." — Syllabus  Ixxv. 

15.  "  Abrogatio  civilis  imperii,  quo  Apostolica  Sedes  potitur,  ad  Ecclesiac 
libertatem  felicitatemque  vel  maxime  conduceret." — Ibid.  Ixxvi . 

16.  "  JEtate  hac  nostra  non  amplius  expedit  religionem  Catholicam  habers 
tanquam  uni  cam  status  religionem,  caeteris  quibuscumque  cultibus  exclusis." 
• — Ibid.  Ixxvii. 

17.  "  Hinc  laudabiliter  in   quibusdam   Catholici   nominis   regionibus   lege 
cautum  est,  ut  hominibus  illuc  immigrantibus  liceat  publicum  proprii  cujusque 
cultus  exercitium  habere." — Ibid.  Ixxviii. 

18.  "  Romanus  Pontifex  potest  ac  debet  cum  progressu,  cum  liberalismo  et 
cum  recent!  civilitate  sese  reconciliare  et  componere." — IM.  Ixxx. 

APPENDIX  B. 

I  have  contented  myself  with  a  minimum  of  citation  from  the  documents  of 
the  period  before  Emancipation.  Their  full  effect  can  only  be  gathered  by  such- 
as  are  acquainted  with,  or  will  take  the  trouble  to  refer  largely  to  the  originals. 
It  is  worth  while,  however,  to  cite  the  following  passage  from  Bishop  Doyle,  as  it 
may  convey,  through  the  indignation  it  expresses,  an  idea  of  the  amplitude  of 
the  assurances  which  had  been  (as  I  believe,  most  honestly  and  sincerely)  given. 

"  There  is  no  justice,  my  Lord,  in  thus  condemning  us.  Such  conduct  on 
the  part  of  our  opponents  creates  in  our  bosoms  a  sense  of  wrong  being  done  to 
ms ;  it  exhausts  our  patience,  it  provokes  our  indignation,  and  prevents  us  from 
reiterating  our  efforts  to  obtain  a  more  impartial  hearing.  We  are  tempted, 
in  such  cases  as  these,  to  attribute  unfair  motives  to  those  who  differ  from  us, 
as  we  cannot  conceive  how  men  gifted  with  intelligence  can  fail  to  discover 
truths  so  plainly  demonstrated  as, 

"  That  our  faith  or  our  allegiance  is  not  regulated  by  any  such  doctrines  as 
those  imputed  to  us  ; 


£'2  APPENDICES. 

"  That  our  duties  to  the  Government  of  our  country  are  not  influenced  nor 
affected  by  any  Bulls  or  practices  of  Popes  ; 

"  That  these  duties  are  to  be  learned  by  us,  as  by  every  other  class  of  His 
Majesty's  subjects,  from  the  Gospel,  from  the  reason  given  to  us  by  God,  from 
that  love  of  country  which  nature  has  implanted  in  our  hearts,  ami  from  those 
constitutional  maxims,  which  are  as  well  understood,  and  as  highly  appreciated, 
by  Catholics  of  the  present  day,  as  by  their  ancestors,  who  founded  them  with 
Alfred,  or  secured  them  at  Runnymede." — Doyle  s  'Essay  on  the  Catholic  Claims,' 
London,  1826,  p.  38. 

The  same  general  tone,  as  in  1826,  was  maintained  in  the  answers  of  the 
witnesses  from  Maynooth  College  before  the  Commission  of  1855.  See,  for 
example,  pp.  132,  161-4,  272-3,  275,  361,  370-5,  381-2,  394-6,  405.  The 
Commission  reported  (p.  64),  "  We  see  no  reason  to  believe  that  there  has 
been  any  disloyalty  in  the  teaching  of  the  College,  or  any  disposition  to 
impair  the  obligations  of  an  unreserved  allegiance  to  your  Majesty." 

APPENDIX  C. 

Compare  the  recent  and  ominous  forecasting  of  the  future  European  policy 
of  the  British  Crown,  in  an  Article  from  a  Romish  Periodical  for  the  current 
month,  which  has  direct  relation  to  these  matters,  and  which  has  every  ap 
pearance  of  proceeding  from  authority. 

"Surely  in  any  European  complication,  such  as  may  any  day  arise,  nay, 
such  as  must  ere  long  arise,  from  the  natural  gravitation  of  the  forces,  which 
are  for  the  moment  kept  in  check  and  truce  by  the  necessity  of  preparation 
for  their  inevitable  collision,  it  may  very  well  be  that  the  future  prosperity  of 
England  may  be  staked  in  the  struggle,  and  that  the  side  which  she  may  take 
maybe  determined,  not  either  by  justice  or  interest,  but  by  a  passionate  resolve 
to  keep  up  the  Italian  kingdom  at  any  hazard." — The  '  Month  '  for  November, 
1-874  :  '  Mr.  Gladstone's  Durham  Letter,'  p.  265. 

This  is  a  remarkable  disclosure.  With  whom  could  England  be  brought  into 
conflict  by  any  disposition  she  might  feel  to  keep  up  the  Italian  kingdom  ? 
Considered  as  States,  both  Austria  and  France  are  in  complete  harmony  with 
Italy.  But  it  is  plain  that  Italy  has  some  enemy  ;  and  the  writers  of  the 
*  Month  '  appear  to  know  who  it  is. 

APPENDIX  D. 

Notice  has  been  taken,  both  in  this  country  and  abroad,  of  the  apparent 
inertness  of  public  men,  and  of  at  least  one  British  Administration,  with 
respect  to  the  subject  of  these  pages.  See  Friedbevg,  '  Grftnzen  zwischen  Staat 
und  Kirche,'  Abtheilung  iii.  pp.  755-6  ;  and  the  Preface  to  the  Fifth  Volume 
of  Mr.  Greenwood's  elaborate,  able,  and  judicial  work,  entitled  '  Cathedra 
Petri,'  p.  iv. 

"  If  there  be  any  chance  of  such  a  revival,  it  would  become  our  political 
leaders  to  look  more  closely  into  the  peculiarities  of  a  system,  which  denies 
the  right  of  the  subject  to  freedom  of  thought  and  action  upon  matters  most 
material  to  his  civil  and  religious  welfare.  There  is  no  mode  of  ascertaining 
the  spirit  and  tendency  of  great  institutions  but  in  a  careful  study  of  their 
history.  The  writer  is  profoundly  impressed  with  the  conviction  that  our 
political  instructors  have  wholly  neglected  this  important  duty  :  or,  which  is 
perhaps  worse,  left  it  in  the  hands  of  a  class  of  persons  whose  zeal  has  outrun 
their  discretion,  and  who  have  sought  rather  to  engage  the  prejudices  than 
the  judgment  of  their  hearers  in  the  cause  they  have,  no  doubt  sincerely, 
at  heart." 

LONDON  :    PBIXTED    HI"   WJI.I.IAM    CLOW £8    AND   SONS,  BTAMi'OBL)    cXKKKT  ,  AND    CHARING  CROSS. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


$afl|flv65  -6B 

: 

r»»  ^/f998 

FEE  2  1  ZOOS 

•     O  '.  D 

MAY  IV  '65  -5  F 

M 
nrp  o  9  ?nn4 

UtU  u  <&  tuu'i 

~  r-  p.* 

[jUN  0  1  Z»D 

\  v3  ' 

REC.  CIR.    MAR       g   jj 

,        ::• 

79 

' 

^JpEV 

•\  z  a  is9b 

BECEiifED 

itn  n  R  wfl^i 

JUL  U  J  i~™vJ 

